[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode
From: "T. Michael Keesey" <email@example.com>
Furthermore, as pointed out above, there are hardly any cases where a genus
unequivocally monotypic. And even where it may seem to be, there may be
literature that is being overlooked. And even if that is not the case,
may be a desire to place future discoveries in a new species of that genus.
Of course, if _Minmi_ were converted to a clade or used as a species
it could still be used; it's not as though there is a proposal to convert
All right, good point. In reality there is probably a sp. out there
somewhere for every supposedly monotypic genus, throwing a wrench in the
works. So there goes that idea.
Still, there ought to be a way to conserve the names of currently monotypic
genera in a meaningful way. Like as a stem group based on a type specimen
and excluding all other type specimens unless they are found to actually
represent the same species. Or as a stem group based on the autapomorphies
of that type specimen, in such a way that if a new specimen was found to
have some, but not all, of those apomorphies then it could be assigned to a
new species within the same "genus"... but then the definition of the
"genus" would have to change to only include those apomorphies shared by
*both* species. Hmmm. I guess this is a discussion for that other list now.
Even if it's just a clade address or a marker or something, I still think
using an existing generic name is preferable to a number, both for
historical and aesthetic reasons (what's the point of naming a species
melanolimnetes if it can't have Eucritta in front of it? :)).
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!