[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Stegosaur volume of Swiss Journal of Geosciences
> I'd rather have rule-based taxonomy than judgement calls and
"experience" any day. Didn't we have enough subjective,
authority-based taxonomy in the past?
Let me just underscore this.
On another note, for people who really want to have a single word for
"type species", can't you say "generotype"? I know "genotype" has a long
tradition (going back to the early 20th or late 19th century at least),
but I... hate it. First, the stem of the word _genus_ isn't _geno-_,
it's _gener-_*. That's why the plural is _genera_ and not _geni_.
Second, there already is a word "genotype" in biology, the opposite of
"phenotype"; on occasion it's a bit confusing to read a text that uses
"genotype" for "type species". -- And third, I've never encountered
"speciotype", "subfamiliotype" or "familiotype"...
* Or, rather, _genus-_ is the stem; but in very early times, [s] between
vowels turned into [z] and then into [r] in Latin, and unstressed vowels
tended to get reduced, so in Classical Latin we find (singular/plural)
ius/iura, mus/mures, lepus/lepores, genus/genera.