|
Romer (1947) lists Watson's classification with Anthracosauroideae and Loxommoideae being superfamilies, but maybe there was just less standardization at the time.
Mickey Mortimer
From: dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu <dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu> on behalf of Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2020 10:13 PM To: dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu> Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Anthracosauroid Eldeceeon redescribed + Permian discosauriscid fossil sites in Czech Republic Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:
> What's the story behind using the -oideae suffix for basal tetrapods, and isn't that automatically corrected to -oidea under the ICZN? Unless Anthracosauroideae is explicitly used as a superfamily (a coordinated family-level taxon), then the ICZN has no business correcting the name to -oidea. The name Anthracosauroideae was originally erected by Watson (1929), and revived by Smithson (1985) as a suborder of Anthracosauria (with Seymouriamorpha as the other suborder). So on that basis it shouldn't fall under the Code at all. |