Re: Croc classification (was Re: Sarcosuchus and Dumbing things down)

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> Contrary to the assertions of several cladists, Owen did not use the term
> 'Crocodylia' (with a Oy¹ instead of an Oi¹)

Did this display correctly? Are you talking about the y/i confusion?

> when he emended Gmelin's
> Crocodili in 1842 to additionally encompass fossil taxa.  The latter
> spelling was introduced in 1973 by Rodney Steel, who considered it to be
in
> accord with the correct spelling of Crocodylus

The reason for the spelling of Crocodili was that *Crocodylus* is
etymologically incorrect -- crocod_i_le is krokod_ei_los in Greek and
therefore crocod_i_lus in Latin. (Of course *Crocodylus* has priority and
can't be changed, to the eternal shame of its author >:-> .)

> Within a traditional Linnean classification, Crocodylia is an
> invalid term, since Crocodilia has priority, having been used consistently
> for over 130 years.

Within a traditional Linnaean classification, i. e. the ICZN, Crocodylia is
neither a valid nor an invalid term, and nothing has any priority, because
the ICZN (unlike the ICBN) simply ignores all ranks above the superfamily!
It's just total anarchy! :-) To take a recent case -- if you find out that
the tribosphenic tooth morphology of many mammals has evolved twice, nobody
can stop you when you think old Tribosphenida is inappropriate and rename it
Boreosphenida, as happened in

Luo Zhexi ("Zhe-Xi Luo"), Richard L. Cifelli & Zofia Kielan-Jaworowska: Dual
origin of tribosphenic mammals, Nature 409, 53 -- 56 (4 January 2001)

That's peer-reviewed and not cladistic (Boreosphenida is called an
infraclass).

> I therefore fully endorse Sereno when he calls Sarcosuchus a crocodilian.

Apparently he doesn't. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/supercroc/ does,
though.