Podokesauridae, Problems of Nomenclature Returned

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

David Marjanovic (david.marjanovic@gmx.at) wrote:

  ... about Podokesauridae ...

<how I hate that name>

  Hmm. I know authors prefer Coelophysidae, but let's look at it this
way....

  Podokesauridae was coined before Coelophysidae. Even though
*Podokesaurus* is considered a junior synonym of *Coelophysis*, and *P.
holyokensis* of *C. bauri*, the ICZN states that the first family to
include the paradigm of the earliest eponym must be the "proper" family to
which any senior synonym of the included paradigm belongs. That is,

  Podokesauridae
    = Ceolophysidae
      *Coelophysis*
        = *Podokesaurus*

  The earliest _family_ name wins by default, not to which the eponym
applies by synonymy. Hence, we have Caenagnathidae despite no valid genus
*Caenagnathus*; it exists because the taxon is a junior synonym of
*Chirostenotes*. Elmisauridae is also lost as a result.

  Sorry, David, hate it all you want, I feel the ICZN, until changed, will
need to be followed. Sereno even uses Coelophysidae, which puzzles me, but
after reading a past post by Jon Wagner on the subject (ha ha! full of
spit and fire, our Jon! :) ):

  http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/2000Jan/msg00378.html

  Anyway, similar arguments were made in the past on similar subjects,
even without synonymy of included taxa, only priority of "family" names. I
hate the use of rank names, just get to ignore the ranks and use the terms
for historical suffices ... lol.... Yeah, I'm whacked and I know it ...
off to the store with me...

=====
Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps 
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all 
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/