[Previous by date - Re: Addendum 4: Conversion of generic epithets]
[Next by date - Addendum 1b: Clade names from apomorphy names]
[Previous by subject - Re: Fwd: Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature]
[Next by subject - Re: Fwd: Vermes]
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 17:31:32 -0600 (CST)
From: "Jonathan R. Wagner" <znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU>
To: Philip Cantino <cantino@ohiou.edu>
Cc: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: Species and genus names [was: RE: Genus names]
At 05:50 PM 2/7/01 -0500, Philip Cantino wrote:
>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.
Forgive the error, what you say is certainly true. However, my point
still stands that the generic epithet is involved in nearly all of these
methods (correct me if I am wrong, all but K, L, and M?). I believe that it
is still in our best interest to forbear definition genus names, even if
they more than likely *will* be available.
Again, sorry for the misrepresentation.
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