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

Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode [was: Re: Lumping Spinosauridae Redux]



(crossposted to the Dinosaur Mailing List and the PhyloCode Mailing List)

--- Nick Pharris <npharris@umich.edu> wrote:

> Quoting "Jonathan R. Wagner" <jonathan.r.wagner@mail.utexas.edu>:
> 
> > It has been proposed informally (by me) that monotypic genus names NOT be
> > converted under the PhyloCode. Such names could be used in an informal
> > sense (with quotation marks, an asterisk, or with a note somewhere in the
> > paper to that effect), basically as "placeholders" conferring access to the
> > literature.
> 
> You mean like _"Suchomimus" tenerensis_ or _Baryonyx* walkeri_?
> 
> Why not just have the "genus" name be _the_ name?

Because it is never really clear if it is monotypic or not.

For example, you might say _Baryonyx_ is monotypic, but others might consider
it to have two or even three species (_tenerensis_ and maybe _lapparenti_).
There are thousands of other examples (_Triceratops_? _Gorilla_?
_Pterodactylus_? _Tyrannosaurus_? etc.)

You can't objectively say that a genus is monotypic, so this cannot be a
straightforward method for conversion.

=====
=====> T. Michael Keesey <http://dino.lm.com/contact>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
=====


                
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com