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

Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode



> 1) For species in genera that are always considered monotypic
(Afrovenator,
> Nothronychus), we have the opportunity to retain the more familiar generic
> tag for the species, so do it.
> 2) For species in genera that are sometimes considered junior synonyms,
but
> are still well-known to the community (Tarbosaurus, Suchomimus), use the
> generic names. Everyone will know what you are talking about anyway, and
> this will also free up the name of the senior synonym (Tyrannosaurus,
> Baryonyx) to be used for its type species.
> 3) For species in genera that are never monotypic (Psittacosaurus,
> Diplodocus), the genus name will be retained as the name of a clade, so
you
> have to use the specific epithet anyway.

In short... generic names should refer to the smallest possible clade that
historical usage allows, and species should only be converted when there are
several in such a minimalistic genus? ... That's a good idea, IMHO -- 
especially considering the fact that by far most species criteria are not
applicable to by far most fossils...