[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 <stygimoloch81@hotmail.com> 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 
> monotypic.

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
monotypic genera.

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!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail