Sorry for cross-posting...
>>What bothers me more is the unamendable definitions PhyloCode would introduce
(if I understand it correctly). Say, for instance, I have two genera, A and
B, and I determine on the basis of current evidence that they are sister
taxa, so I define each as a stem-based taxon opposed to the other:
Under the current system, I can give weird-ass critter C a new generic name,
to reflect its weird-assedness, and represent its proximity to A on a
phylogenetic tree. But if Genus A has already been *defined* as all
organisms closer to the type of A than to the type of B, and this definition
cannot be amended, then I am *forced* to place C in genus A, and I feel this
goes against the spirit of a genus.<<
This is why the PhyloCode considers all ranks, including genus, totally irrelevant -- simply kill the spirit of a genus :-> . You can put it into A, but A is no genus, just a clade like all others. HP Chris Brochu has defined a node Globidonta within the node Crocodylus.
>>Basically, I think the flexibility currently present at the genus level needs
to be preserved, so perhaps PhyloCode should only apply to suprageneric taxa.
What, then, is a genus? Well, maybe it can just be defined as the first
part of the binomial.<<
There is still no agreement about what should be done with species. Getting totally rid of the genus rank won't be easy and will lead to quite some problems -- we're all used to the spirit of a genus, much more so than those of higher ranks -- unless a good way of how to deal with species. There are something like 13 suggestions around, and this state hasn't changed for the last 2 years.
Maybe releasing the first version of the PhyloCode without provisions for species and genera is not such a bad idea?