Re: Paleozoic tetrapod papers

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

> > There _is_ something wrong with having homonyms that are governed by the 
> > same code, and the ICZN governs all names at the species-group, genus-group 
> > and family-group ranks.
> > The rank of subfamily (with its mandatory ending -inae) belongs to the 
> > family group.
>
> I agree that homonyms should never be allowed for genera/species.
> Having two genera named _Cacops_ would be a very bad thing, and this
> is something that the ICZN should police. But I can't understand why
> it's so bad to have two clades named Cacopinae.

~:-| For the exact same reason. Why is it worse to have two clades called 
*Cacops* than two called *Cacopinae*?

> Having the ICZN govern all family-level clades is more of a hindrance
> than a help.

I completely agree. But then, to avoid confusion, authors should state when 
they depart from the ICZN, and they should avoid its mandatory suffixes. 
(Microraptoria forever.)

> The reason why I think Eucacopinae is a bad idea is because this name
> implies it contains a genus called Eucacops. As mentioned, the
> problem could have been bypassed by calling the new clade
> ("subfamily") Cacopsinae or Aspidosaurinae.

I agree.

> So we do we still stick to these outdated ICZN
> conventions for family-level groups?

1) Weight of tradition;
2) lack of alternatives -- we're working on implementing the ICPN 
("PhyloCode"), but we're not there yet. Having _a_ code of nomenclature is 
generally better than having none at all.