Article 13.1.1 states that names after 1930 must "be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon," or follow the provisions of 13.1.2 (refer to such a statement in another publication) or 13.1.3 (be proposed as a replacement name). It seems to me that the cladistic analysis by Rauhut (2010) should furnish a suite of synapomorphies which would fit the bill.
Is there a list "in words"?If it's in the supplementary information, does the latter count as published...? I think I'm opening a big can of worms here.
> In addition, the authors argue that when establishing this taxon, > it is provided as a monophyletic clade, which Averianov et al claim > as a tautology, as every clade is apparently monophyletic. Not "apparently", "by definition". A clade is a monophyletic taxon. The phrase "monophyletic clade" is redundant, like "round planet" or "positively-charged proton".
Indeed. This goes so far that the German word for "clade" is _Monophylum_. The definition of "clade" is "an ancestor and all its descendants".It's true that phylogenetic definitions of para- and even polyphyletic taxa are possible in phylogenetic nomenclature (though forbidden by the PhyloCode). But that doesn't make such taxa clades.