[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dinosaur a tecnical term; fish is not (was RE: Fish with milk (Sheesh spinoff))
> essentialism. Types were
> held to be the exemplars of some taxon (for
> instance, there was
> commonly a "type species" for genera in the early
> 19thC), but they
> did not have to bear all the characters of the
> taxon's other members.
Every Linnean genus still requires a type species -
the one which is first described as member of that
genus or in cases like splits a newly designated one*.
Hence "name-bearing type". If you consider a genus a
clade (which it should ideally be), the type species
is the subclade where whe containing clade of which
bears that name if not a junior synonym. Thus, if the
type species gets removed from a genus, it takes the
genus name along with it. At least that's how it works
in zoology, but I think everywhere else too.
* Barring the fundamental assumption that no older
name would be available.
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de