[Previous by date - RE: apomorphy-based names]
[Next by date - Re: Addendum 4: Conversion of generic epithets]
[Previous by subject - Re: Addendum 4: Conversion of generic epithets]
[Next by subject - Re: Addendum 4: Conversion of generic epithets]
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 16:50:19 -0600 (CST)
From: "Jonathan R. Wagner" <znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU>
To: David Marjanovic <David.Marjanovic@gmx.at>
Cc: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Addendum 4: Conversion of generic epithets
At 11:12 PM 2/7/01 +0100, David Marjanovic wrote:
>> 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*)
Yes!
>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.
Please understand, I do NOT object to clade definitions for generic
epithets! I simply feel that we MUST wait for a resolution on species epithets.
Wagner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock, TX 79409-1053
"Why do I sense we've picked up another pathetic lifeform?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi