Ctenodactyl**** case (was: Dromiina)

Ken Kinman kinman2 at YAHOO.COM
Mon Nov 1 15:10:44 CST 2004


Yes,
     It does look like something needs to be done in the Ctenodactyl**** case (I don't know of any action that has been taken to date).  I would also agree the mammal taxon is the one that should be conserved as it is.  The use of Superfamily Ctenodactyloidea alone probably exceeds that of the beetle taxa (tribe, supertribe, and subfamily), and the use of Family Ctenodactylidae would dwarf it.

    This family of mammals is also very controversial and phylogenetically important, being so close to the origin of Order Rodentia.  Thus it is the only living representative of at least two subordinal taxa (Ctenodactylomorpha and Arvicolida), and also is used as the first two syllables of the large "clade" Ctenohystrica (named in 2000).  [NOTE: although Ctenohystrica could well be holophyletic, two other possible topologies could render it paraphyletic].  In summary, Ctenodactylidae is so important to mammalogists that I would recommend that entomologists not even try to get it emended (rather than the beetle names).
                 ----- Ken
********************************************************
Wolfgang wrote:
     Probably, a similar proposal will be (or already was??) desirable for the other homonymy which I already mentioned on this listserve, a couple of months ago:
Ctenodactylinae Castelnau, 1834 (sometimes ranked at tribal level with ending -ini only) in Insecta Coleoptera Carabidae, based on the genus Ctenodactyla Dejean, 1825 is a homonym of Ctenodactylidae Gervais, 1853 based on the genus Ctenodactylus Gray, 1830.  The junior homonym seems to be a well-known name in Mammalia Rodentia, at the higher family level, so I guess it's also used a lot more than the name in carabid beetles.




More information about the Taxacom mailing list