[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]
--- Michael de Sosa <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >You can't objectively say that a genus is monotypic, so this cannot be a
> >straightforward method for conversion.
> No, we may not know if *Tyrannosaurus* is monotypic, but we DO know
> *Tyrannosaurus rex* is monotypic and we DO know *Tarbosaurus bataar* is
Those are species -- they can't be monotypic.
> By implementing PhyloCode and only recognizing monophyletic taxa
The first version will only cover monophyletic taxa; future editions may cover
species and other types of taxa as well.
> we are
> trying to make things more precise, right? But if you name a species *rex*
> you will constantly have to clarify WHICH *rex* you are talking about
> (Tyrannosaurus? Othnielia? Melanocharacidium? Rhododendrum???).
There are proposals for dealing with this, such as requiring a clade address,
or a citation.
> So just call
> it *Tyrannosaurus* and everyone will immediately know exactly what species
> you are referring to.
No, because many include _T. bataar_ under _Tyrannosaurus_.
Furthermore, this ignores the majority of species, which are not part of
I would have to agree with HP Wagner on this one.
=====> T. Michael Keesey <http://dino.lm.com/contact>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!