[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode
I think many people would agree with the idea that a name that
traditionally refers to a species should be used for a species, and a name
that has traditionally NOT been used for a species should NOT be used for a
species. Regardless of how much easier it is to remember one or the other,
swapping names between two different categories of taxa (clades and
populations) is a pretty bad idea.
But for many fossil genera with only one known species, the generic name HAS
traditionally been used for the species. A name like Minmi paravertebra is
redundant, as it only refers to one population (actually only one
*individual*). So assuming we do need to reduce the name of the population
to a single term, a brief perusal of the literature will quickly demonstrate
which name has traditionally been used, over and over again, to describe the
population, both in the text of papers and in phylogenetic diagrams. The
name *paravertebra* is used maybe once, just for appearances, if at all.
After that it's all *Minmi* this and *Minmi* that.
I guess I don't see the point of making a name *less* precise and then
attaching a citation or a marker to make it *more* precise again, or of
putting the generic name in quotes in front of the species name to "confer
access to the literature" when you can just use the generic name which is
actually *used* in the literature and save yourself some time in
cross-referencing. But I see you have different priorities and your
reasoning makes sense in that context. *shrug*
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!