[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> Nick Pharris
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 3:50 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode
> If we're going to get rid of binominals, I think the best way to
> do it is to
> have a straightforward way of converting a binominal into a
> "uninominal" that
> encodes the same information. My proposal (which I predict both
> Mike and Jon
> will instantly dislike) is as follows:
> 1.) Any species that has been named as the type species of a
> genus will take on
> that generic name as its uninominal.
> 2.) All other species will be converted by having the specific
> name compounded
> with the generic name.
> 3.) In cases where a plant and an animal have been described
> with the same
> generic name, whichever species was named first will be
> considered the type
> species for the purposes of (1) and all others (animal and plant) will be
> converted as per (2).
> So, for what is now _Parasaurolophus_, we would have:
> _Parasaurolophus_ (=_P. walkeri_)
> _Tubiciniparasaurolophus_ (=_P. tubicen_)
> _Cyrtocristatiparasaurolophus_ (=_P. cyrtocristatus_)
> Sure, it makes for some long names, but they are one-word names
> that uniquely
> identify species.
Is there some compelling reason NOT do this as:
These would also be unique...
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Department of Geology Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland College Park Scholars
Building 237, Room 1117
College Park, MD 20742
Phone: 301-405-4084 Email: email@example.com
Fax (Geol): 301-314-9661 Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796