Re: [dinosaur] Tyrannosauridae Osborn, 1906: ICZN Case 3815 to conserve (free pdf)

[Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com>]

> 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

Tyrannosauridae certainly deserves to have precedence over
Deinodontidae and Dryptosauridae.  But in a practical sense,
Tyrannosauridae already does have precedence; these days, nobody uses
Deinodontidae and Dryptosauridae in preference to Tyrannosauridae.  So
Tyrannosauridae isn't exactly "threatened".  A "strict application of
the Code" has effectively been set aside - which is perfectly fine.

As so often stated on this list, zoological nomenclature should be for
the benefit of science, not the other way round.  I'm sure this
petition to the ICZN is well-intentioned, but I complelely agree with
Jason that it looks like a solution in search of a problem.

I hope the ICZN decides that Tyrannosauridae does indeed have
precedence.... otherwise, it's opened a _T. rex_-sized can of worms.


David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:

> The ICZN regulates names at the species, genus and family _groups of ranks_. 
> The rank of superfamily is in the family group of ranks.

This reminds me of another potential complication, this time
concerning the 'superfamily' Tyrannosauroidea.  In those phylogenies
that find  _Coelurus_ to be a member of Tyrannosauroidea, "strict
application of the Code" would determine that Tyrannosauroidea should
be renamed Coeluroidea.  This is because Coeluridae was named before
Tyrannosauridae.  But I say BFD.  It's much more sensible to ignore
these nomenclatural peccadillos and continue to use Tyrannosauroidea,
irrespective of  the position of  _Coelurus_.  Otherwise we have to
play ICZN wack-a-mole just to preserve Tyrannosauroidea.

> I wonder, however, if Deinodontidae and Dryptosauridae are nomina oblita 
> anyway (i.e. not used since 1899). If they are, the conservation has already 
> happened.

Alas, both Deinodontidae and Dryptosauridae have been used since then,
as the text of Case 3815 spells out.



Ben Creisler <bcreisler@gmail.com> wrote:

> However, in current phylo practice, many researchers only recognize the genus 
> and species has having any formal hierarchy and ignore rules on forming 
> family-level names.

I'm perfectly fine with this approach.  Let the ICZN have jurisdiction
over genera, species, neotypes, etc - all of which are important.  But
in the current era of phylogenetic nomenclature, I don't see any point
in the ICZN governing family-level taxa (including coordinated ranks
like superfamily).