Message 2001-02-0032: Fwd: Species and genus names [was: RE: Genus names]

Wed, 07 Feb 2001 17:50:25 -0500

[Previous by date - Re: Addendum 4: Conversion of generic epithets]
[Next by date - RE: apomorphy-based names]
[Previous by subject - Fwd: Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature]
[Next by subject - Fwd: The starting phase of the PhyloCode and other issues]

Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 17:50:25 -0500
From: Philip Cantino <>
Subject: Fwd: Species and genus names [was: RE: Genus names]

Jonathan wrote:
>Many of the
>alternative naming schemes proposed in the Cantino et al. paper require that
>genus names not be available for naming as clades.

This is incorrect.  Only one of the naming schemes in our paper
(method C) requires that genus names not be available as clade names;
see column 7 in Table 3 of that paper.

On a different subject, I will take this opportunity to say that I
agree with Kevin that apomorphy-based definitions should remain
available for those who wish to use them.  So in David Baum's poll,
count me as "Pro."

I also agree with Gerry's point that, because genus names
frequently are based on diagnostic (and thus often apomorphic)
characters, it is not reasonable to recommend that all converted
names that refer to apomorphies have apomorphy-based definitions.

Summing up, I feel that all three kinds of definitions should be
available for use.  Thus, I disagree both with those who would like
to eliminate apomorphy-based definitions and with Jonathan's proposed
recommendation 11.8C, which discourages the use of stem-based and
node-based definitions of particular kinds of names.


Philip D. Cantino
Professor and Chair
Department of Environmental and Plant Biology
Ohio University
Athens, OH 45701-2979

Phone: (740) 593-1128; 593-1126
Fax: (740) 593-1130


Feedback to <> is welcome!