[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." <email@example.com>:
> > 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...
Ah, but those are not nouns. Those are noun phrases stuffed together with no
space in the middle.
Department of Linguistics
University of Michigan