Re: of taxonomic suffixies

[Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com>]

Mikko Haaramo wrote:


> Tim, unfortunately -ida suffix is commonly used to
> designate orders or superorders... :(


But the ICZN has no issue with taxon names that end in -ida.  By contrast, taxa 
ending in -idae are assumed to be family-level names.  They therefore fall 
under the sway of the Code.  Consequently, they are bound to the Code's arcane 
"rules" regarding hierarchy and priority.  

To return to the example that spawned this thread, removing the -idae suffix 
from the end of Sinraptoridae allows it to circumvent the Code's ridiculous 
insistence that the name Metriacanthosauridae should have priority over 
Sinraptoridae for the "family" that includes both _Metriacanthosaurus_ and 
_Sinraptor_ (because Metriacanthosauridae was named before Sinraptoridae).


> Unfortunately there is no hierarchy-free usage of
> established suffixes. They always have some previous package
> or implications with them.

I respectfully disagree.  Most suffixes are hierarchy-free, and happily so.  
Names ending in -oidea have been used for taxa at the level of "superfamily" 
(such as Allosauroidea, Muroidea), "order" (Hyracoidea), and "class" 
(echinoderm clades, such as Holothuroidea and Crinoidea).  The convention that 
the -ida suffix is commonly used to designate orders or superorders is defied 
by several invertebrate "phyla" and "classes" (Priapulida, Phoronida, Annelida, 
Myxostomida, etc).  And although commonly associated with "orders" of fishes or 
birds, names ending in -iformes are now pretty much used for anything 
(Archosaurifomes, Maniraptoriformes, Elephantiformes, etc).

Names ending in -idae (family), -inae (subfamily), and -ini (tribe) are 
exceptional in being bound by the rules of hierarchy in order to conform to the 
Code.  My point was that we either stop applying the Code to these family-level 
taxa; or we start using names that skirt the Code's rules altogether - such as 
replacing Sinraptoridae with Sinraptorida.  My example is tongue-in-cheek - but 
it illustrates a problem with applying the Code's rules regarding f
 in the age of phylogenetic nomenclature.


> I'm not sure if inventing new ones does any good. In my
> opinion it just worsens the situation by adding taxonomic
> glutter.

I take your point.  Nevertheless, new clade names are invented all the time.  
To return to the original issue, is it worth re-naming a whole clade 
(Metriacanthosauridae --> Sinraptoridae) simply because a genus is added to the 
clade?  I would say nomenclatural stability is more important, and PhyloCode 
would agree with me on this.


> Simple, short names are always easier to remember that a
> monster >10 letter words (this from a person who's native
> language relishes such monsters... :) )

I would agree with you here.  I'm just not sure what this has to do with the 
current discussion....   :-)


> My 2 âc at 9 o'clock in the morning... ;P

My Au2c (around 0.6 âc) at 6:30 in the evening.


Cheers

Tim