| Virus-free. www.avg.com |
Does this paper need to exist? The ICZN doesn't govern anything above the family level, so you are already free to use whatever you want there. As for Tyrannosauridae getting swapped out for Deinodontidae, I don't see that happening either. It's already common usage and would be more of an effort to get people to use the older term. Maybe I'm missing something here, but this paper looks like it is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.JasonBen CreislerA new paper:Chan-gyu Yun (2020)
Case 3815 â Tyrannosauridae Osborn, 1906 (Dinosauria, Theropoda): proposed conservation by reversal of precedence with Deinodontidae Cope, 1866 and Dryptosauridae Marsh, 1890.
The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 77(1): 29-34
doi: https://doi.org/10.21805/bzn.v77.a008
https://bioone.org/journals/The-Bulletin-of-Zoological-Nomenclature/volume-77/issue-1/bzn.v77.a008/Case-3815--Tyrannosauridae-Osborn-1906-Dinosauria-Theropoda--proposed/10.21805/bzn.v77.a008.short
Free download/full text:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341052737_Case_3815_-_Tyrannosauridae_Osborn_1906_Dinosauria_Theropoda_proposed_conservation_by_reversal_of_precedence_with_Deinodontidae_Cope_1866_and_Dryptosauridae_Marsh_1890
The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve at both the family and superfamily level the widely used family-group name Tyrannosauridae (-oidea) Osborn, 1906 (Dinosauria, Theropoda), which is threatened by its senior subjective synonyms Deinodontidae (-oidea) Cope, 1866 and Dryptosauridae (-oidea) Marsh, 1890. Strict application of the Code would result in unnecessary confusion in dinosaur taxonomy since the names Tyrannosauridae and Tyrannosauroidea have been used consistently in the vertebrate paleontological literature since the 1970s with only a very few exceptions.
=====