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

RE: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode



Quoting "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <tholtz@geol.umd.edu>:

> > 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:
> _Parasaurolophustubicen_
> and
> _Parasaurolophuscyrtocristatus_?
>
> These would also be unique...

Ah, but those are not nouns.  Those are noun phrases stuffed together with no
space in the middle.

Nick Pharris
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Linguistics
University of Michigan