Talk:Proceratosauridae

Dispute

• Averianov et al. (2010) argued that Proceratosauridae Rauhut et al. (2010) represented a nomen nudum, stating that the description of Rauhut et al. did not satisify Article 13.1.1 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. This article states that "To be available, every new name published after 1930 must satisfy the provisions of Article 11 and ... must be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon...", which Averianov et al. opined was not the case for the Proceratosauridae Rauhut et al., so that they claimed the Proceratosauridae as fam.nov. However, two considerations invalidate this nomenclatorial act:
• Morphological characters diagnosing the Proceratosauridae were given by Rauhut et al. in the discussion of the results of the phylogenetic analysis (page 184). Although the clade Proceratosauridae is not mentioned in this paragraph, this fulfills article 13.1.1 of the ICZN, since this article does not state any requirement that the new taxon and the diagnosis must be included in a formal "Systematics" section, and, from the paragraph naming the Proceratosauridae (p. 186-187), there can be no doubt that this name refers to the clade for which the synapomorphies are clearly stated on page 184.
• The name Proceratosauridae was defined phylogenetically by Rauhut et al. as "all theropods that are more closely related to Proceratosaurus than to Tyrannosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Coelurus, Ornithomimus,or Deinonychus". Article 13.1.1 of the code only states that a new name must be accompanied by a "diagnosis or definition", so this as well satisfies the requirements of the code, since a definition is given. The code is not very specific what kind of "characters" are to be used for this diagnosis or definition, and phylogenetic relationships might be used as "characters" in this sense.
• however, Proceratosauridae Rauhut et al. (2010) may not be available on a strict interpretation of ICZN Article 16.2, as the type genus was not explicitly stated to be the type genus in the original publication Stho002 (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• This would be an extremely strict interpretation of the code (which then could be used to dispute almost all clade names given in a phylogenetic context). Article 16.2. states that "a new family-group name published after 1999 must be accompanied by citation of the name of the type genus (i.e. the name from which the family-group name is formed)". Thus it does not state that the type genus must be clearly indicated by the words "type genus"! Rauhut et al. (2010: 186-187) create the taxon in the following context: "...as demonstrated by the early tyrannosaur clade formed by Proceratosaurus and Guanlong. This clade may be termed the Proceratosauridae, and can be defined as all theropods that are more closely related to Proceratosaurus than to Tyrannosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Coelurus, Ornithomimus, or Deinonychus". Thus, the indication of Proceratosaurus as the type genus of the family by its use as the anchor taxon in the phylogenetic definition, and from the context should fulfill the requirements of the code. Since the whole article furthermore deals with this taxon, there can be no reasonable doubt to which genus the family name refers. June 25, 12.26 CET (unregistered user)