[Previous by date - Species and genus names [was: RE: Genus names]]
[Next by date - Re: RE: apomorphy-based names]
[Previous by subject - Re: Addendum 3: Specifiers for non-apomorphy-based apomorphy-derived clade names]
[Next by subject - Re: Addendum 4: Conversion of generic epithets]
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 23:12:12 +0100
From: David Marjanovic <David.Marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: PhyloCode mailing list <PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Addendum 4: Conversion of generic epithets
> Draft item (Rule 10.2?) for PhyloCode, Article 10
>
> 10.2 Until rules for the formal recognition of species-entities are
> admitted to the Code, names which, in standard practice outside this Code,
> hold the rank of genus or subgenus may not be converted to clade names.
I agree. (among other reasons because of the example of *Archaeopteryx*)
On the other hand, there are genera around which have a useful definition.
The only example I know is *Crocodylus*, which is node-based and contains a
node-based taxon called Globidonta. This works because *C.* has lots of
species. So I'd add that genera or subgenera (if there are any; Globidonta
is not a subgenus) that are already defined could stay so, if their
definitions are used and useful ("useful" being reciprocally defined here).