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

Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode

Quoting "T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com>:

> I don't prefer either method as of yet, but they both seem feasible to me.
> Your
> method seems fixated on removing spaces from species names, which I don't see
> as a huge problem.

Well, I think giving every species a single, unique name (and avoiding mucking
about with authors and dates) would be valuable.

It also obviates the need to change names when ideas about relationships (and
hence genus assignments) change.

> > > This would create massive confusion with the preexisting literature --
> can
> > > you imagine _Homo_ pertaining only to our species, not even including
> > > Neanderthals?
> >
> > Uh, yes, I can.  In fact, that is exactly what the word referred to for
> > thousands of years before it was co-opted as a generic epithet.
> I seriously doubt that if the classical Romans had known about Neanderthals,
> they would not have called them "homo" as well. But, in any event, this is
> plainly not about classical Romans -- it's about anthropologists. The genus
> _Homo_ has come to have a pretty stable meaning compared to a lot of other
> taxa. _Homo sapiens_ is probably the most widely recognized species name ever
> (even more than _Tyrannosaurus rex_). It makes little sense to change _Homo_
> to
> mean what _Homo sapiens_ has meant. _Homo_ already delineates a pretty nice
> clade; there's no real reason to subvert that.

Well, fine.  Then Just convert all of them, and keep Homo as a clade
encompassing all:  The clade Homo would contain Sapientihomo,
Neanderthalensihomo, Erectihomo, etc.

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