tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post8872360499121552589..comments2024-03-17T01:48:59.504-07:00Comments on The Theropod Database Blog: Article 13.1.1 means Lewisuchinae/idae is doomed and that Unenlagiinae and Microraptorinae are misattributedMickey Mortimerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-65906636885468467242010-03-09T00:50:19.351-08:002010-03-09T00:50:19.351-08:00One aspect which could be problematic for a small ...One aspect which could be problematic for a small number of cases is "statement in words" portion. Hongshanornithidae is never defined or diagnosed in sentences, but instead has a list of character state changes in the form of "15 -> 1". As in, character 15 changes to state 1. Does that count as "in words" since it could be expressed in words, or do numbers and symbols mean it's a nomen nudum?Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-40121570813368224822010-03-08T23:09:24.342-08:002010-03-08T23:09:24.342-08:00This is definitely one of the more contentious art...This is definitely one of the more contentious articles in the Code; its been suggested that a lot of commonly used names could be threatened if it was invoked more fully than it often is. For instance, many phylogenetic studies have resulted in names being given to particular clades without an explicit 'diagnosis' for the clade though it is often pretty clear in context what the intended meaning is (take a look at molecular studies of birds for the last thirty years as an example). It could be (and has been) argued that as the only part of the original description that is binding in any way is that the family name must refer to a taxon including the type genus, then designation of the type genus should be all that is necessary to establish a new family-group taxon.<br /><br />It doesn't help matters that there's a number of researchers out there that interpret 'diagnosis' or 'definition' to refer specifically to <i>morphological</i> diagnoses, and so regard anything explicitly defined on phylogenetic or molecular grounds only as invalid. I don't see how this argument stands up in the context of the ICZN, myself - the Code, for instance, defines a 'diagnosis' as "a statement in words that purports to give those characters which differentiate the taxon from other taxa with which it is likely to be confused" with comparable definitions for 'definition' and 'description'. Just because most 'characters' used in the past have been morphological doesn't mean that they <i>a priori</i> shouldn't be phylogenetic or molecular as far as I can see (it might be argued that morphological characters are better but that's a separate issue, just as 'availability' and 'validity' of taxa are separate issues).Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-68413640655415157302010-03-06T13:09:36.455-08:002010-03-06T13:09:36.455-08:00Caught that. Obviously I'm not as up on the I...Caught that. Obviously I'm not as up on the ICZN as I thought. I'm currently sitting in Dr. Wann Langston's library looking though Hay's (1930)catalogue of NA vertebrates for starters. Very interesting.Bill Parkerhttp://chinleana.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-26221516324402457882010-03-06T13:01:22.389-08:002010-03-06T13:01:22.389-08:00Thanks! I'd like to see that list of pseudosu...Thanks! I'd like to see that list of pseudosuchian family validity. As for Shuvosauridae, remember Article 13.5 that states if a family-level name and nominal genus are proposed in the same work, one definition/diagnosis will do. Since Chatterjee (1993) diagnosed Shuvosaurus, that counts for Shuvosauridae as well.Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-75617370003067702352010-03-06T09:08:39.538-08:002010-03-06T09:08:39.538-08:00That is pretty good, I would have thought there wo...That is pretty good, I would have thought there would have been more (see my comment at Chinleana), but then the pre-1930 status of many commonly used names preserves them.<br /><br />I see you're already using sensu as well ;). <br /><br />I'll tackle the pseudosuchians one of these days just out of curiosity. I already know Shuvosauridae is not valid.Bill Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05941940882532354219noreply@blogger.com