[Previous by date - species and clades]
[Next by date - Fwd: species and clades]
[Previous by subject - Re: Gender of species names?]
[Next by subject - Re: Hi]
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 22:51:50 +0100
From: David Marjanovic <David.Marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Genera as clades, Re: clades and species
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_2oilxeUDGJI9cJWtsPPV7w) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable These two posts again show the difference between paleo- and = neontologists. Extant monotypic genera are quite rare, while by far most = Mesozoic dinosaur genera are monotypic, and IMHO they deserve so, = because the fossil record just is... Most paleontologists will never get = into the situation of naming anything between genus and species. There are counterexamples. The placoderm "fish" Bothriolepis with its = reported 100 species comes to mind. But this is not the norm among = fossils. Some fossil genera that were thought to contain about 20 species, = notably Rhamphorhynchus, Pterodactylus and Triceratops, have been shown = to contain only one or so, all others being = ontogenetic/individual/sexually dimorphic/whatever variants. The same = has happened to many genera that were thought to contain 2 or 3 species. = More examples in The Dinosauricon... In short: More interdisciplinary communication. If too many or too few = neontologists or paleontologists are involved in making the PhyloCode, = the others will run into problems. --Boundary_(ID_2oilxeUDGJI9cJWtsPPV7w) Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>These two posts again show the = difference between=20 paleo- and neontologists. Extant monotypic genera are quite rare, while = by far=20 most Mesozoic dinosaur genera are monotypic, and IMHO they deserve so, = because=20 the fossil record just is... Most paleontologists will never get into = the=20 situation of naming anything between genus and species.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>There are counterexamples. The = placoderm "fish"=20 <EM>Bothriolepis</EM> with its reported 100 species comes to mind. But = this is=20 not the norm among fossils.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Some fossil genera that were thought to = contain=20 about 20 species, notably <EM>Rhamphorhynchus</EM>, = <EM>Pterodactylus</EM> and=20 <EM>Triceratops</EM>, have been shown to contain only one or so, all = others=20 being ontogenetic/individual/sexually dimorphic/whatever variants. The = same has=20 happened to many genera that were thought to contain 2 or 3 species. = More=20 examples in The Dinosauricon...</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>In short: More interdisciplinary = communication. If=20 too many or too few neontologists or paleontologists are involved in = making the=20 PhyloCode, the others will run into problems.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> --Boundary_(ID_2oilxeUDGJI9cJWtsPPV7w)--