[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: genus definitions



> ...this would render your previous suggestion ineffective. For example,
say I
> want to include _bison_ as a species inside _Bos_. But, under ICZN rules,
> _bison_ was made the type of _Bison_. So I decide not to convert _Bison_.
But,
> since _bison_ was declared a type species by a preexisting code, It can't
be
> part of _Bos_ - it just floats in _Bovini_ (or _Bovina_?).

I see. More complicated wordings that take this into account might be
possible, but certainly not desirable.

> I didn't think PhyloCode was going to cover subspecies.

We've been promised a paper on this issue. :-)

> (And _neanderthalensis_
> seems to be widely regarded as a separate species now, anyway.)

Widely, yes. But not by me :->
(... And here we get an impressive demonstration of the species problem.
Chronospecies, allospecies, hybridization, all at once. :-) )