[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Yay! Cladobabble! :-)
--- Nick Pharris <email@example.com> wrote:
> Quoting "Jaime A. Headden" <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> OK, so I was playing a little fast and loose. Actually, I was suggesting
> that we could just scrap superspecies and subgenera and just define "genus"
> as the clade immediately dominating the species (with the proviso that every
> species has to have one). That way, we get to keep our naming system intact
> and still be intellectually honest. If we find there are robust clades
> within a "genus" (what might today be called subgenera), we can always just
> split them off into several genera. No big whoop.
This doesn't work, though.
What genus does the ancestral species of a larger clade belong to?
> Look, we all know that the basic unit in the tree of life is the individual
> (or maybe if you really stretch it, the population or the species). But for
> better or worse, the basic unit of taxonomic nomenclature is the genus. All
> those -idaes, -omorphas, -iformeses, and -inis are based on genus names, not
> species, and not specimen numbers.
PhyloCode's solution to this is to make it so the eponymous taxa actually rest
on the type species of the genus, not the genus itself.
=====> 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!