[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
--- Tim Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:
> >I would strongly disagree(!) with making Daspletosaurus and Tarbosaurus
> >subgenera of Tyrannosaurus.
> I have to agree with George here. In general, I think erecting subgenera
> is bad policy for fossil taxa; if a species is good enough to be a subgenus,
> why not go the whole hog and give it its own genus?
Because most well-known Mesozoic dinosaur genera are already monotypic. It's
kind of ridiculous that almost everything has two names.
I think erecting subgenera is bad policy for another reason: I'd like to just
use clades and (grudgingly) species as formal taxa. Subgenera present a problem
when converting to clades: namely that a lot of them are homonymous with
another taxon (the genus).
Clades within clades that were converted from genera, though -- that's fine.
=====> T. Michael Keesey <email@example.com>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!