[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode

> From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
> Nick Pharris
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 3:50 PM
> To: stygimoloch81@hotmail.com
> Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu
> 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.
                Vertebrate Paleontologist
Department of Geology           Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland          College Park Scholars
        Mailing Address:
                Building 237, Room 1117
                College Park, MD  20742  
Phone:  301-405-4084    Email:  tholtz@geol.umd.edu
Fax (Geol):  301-314-9661       Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796