Dnia 22 listopada 2020 06:53 Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com> napisaÅ(a):
I don't think it's sensible to have families named after nomina dubia.So from that perspective, Troodontidae should be calledSaurornithoididae. I also think it would be practical to discardCeratopsidae and split it up into two families, Centrosauridae andChasmosauridae.The reason why families should NOT be named after indeterminate generais because a family must include the name-giving genus (which makessense). So Ceratopsidae must include _Ceratops_. But if _Ceratops_is a nomen dubium, it should not be treated as a taxon, and it shouldnot be used as an OTU in a phylogenetic analysis. There is/was nocreature called _Ceratops_; it's just a name. Genus _Ceratops_ is azombie: it's a dead name that's kept alive purely for bookkeepingreasons, simply because it gives its name to Ceratopsidae. I knowthe ICZN allows this sort of thing, but from a biological standpointit's antiquated and bizarre.On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 4:48 PM Ethan Schoales <ethan.schoales@gmail.com> wrote:Isn't Ceratops already obsolete? It's technically the type genus of Ceratopsidae, but it might as well not be.On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 12:46 AM Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com> wrote:Ethan Schoales <ethan.schoales@gmail.com> wrote:> I've seen some recent papers on the DML that use it as valid, but Zanno et al. 2017 declared it dubious due to its non-diagnostic holotype. Basically, what people worried would happen to Diplodocus, hence the petition.Yes. Hence the petition, :-Z> I wonder if, in a few decades, if not sooner, Troodon will be where Trachodon is now - a name you only see in old books>> But I think that declaring that we can no longer use a name that's been widely used for over 150 years is a bad idea.While it's true that the name _Troodon_ has been around since 1856,it's had a very tortuous taxonomic history. For a while (~1924-1945)_Troodon_ was considered a pachycephalosaur., before being recognized(again) as some kind of theropod. It was only in 1987 that _Troodon_was recognized as belonging to the same family as the better known_Stenonychosaurus_ and _Saurornithoides_, and the family was thereforegiven the name Troodontidae. (I prefer Saurornithoididae, but I'mfighting a losing battle on that front.) So although the name_Troodon_ has been used for over 150 years, it hasn't beenconsistently used.Personally, I'd like to see _Troodon_ retained as a valid genus vianomination of a neotype (subject to ICZN approval). But unless thathappens (which seems unlikely), the name _Troodon_ will indeed go theway of _Trachodon_. Sadly, _Ceratops_ and _Titanosaurus_ willinevitably suffer the same fate.