[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" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com>

Furthermore, as pointed out above, there are hardly any cases where a genus is
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, there
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 address,
it could still be used; it's not as though there is a proposal to convert only
non-monotypic genera.

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? :)).

Mike D

Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/