Message 2001-02-0042: Re: species and clades

Thu, 08 Feb 2001 17:06:04 -0600 (CST)

[Previous by date - Fwd: species and clades]
[Next by date - Re: Fwd: species and clades]
[Previous by subject - Re: species]
[Next by subject - Re: species names]

Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 17:06:04 -0600 (CST)
From: znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU
To: "David M. Hillis" <>
Subject: Re: species and clades

On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, David M. Hillis wrote:
> Such a rule is may not be clear to everyone on the 
> listserv that the plan is to include rules for naming species before 
> the code is adopted.
	Given the points that Dr. Cantino made, I would prefer that the
recommendation be considered, and even added to the draft, until we are
sure that this is the case. I feel that this is an important
consideration, one which may be lost if we try to keep too many balls in
the air at the same time.

> I do NOT think we want to avoid converting clades that were genera or 
> subgenera...
	Neither do I, in the long run. However, until we have sorted out
what to do with the full species name, I think we probably ought to

> under the Zoology Rules, at least, any group name that is 
> below a genus is considered a subgenus, even if it is called by 
> another rank
	My understanding of ICZN was that the actual generic epithet is
the only one of real import to the species name anyway... perhaps the
proposal does not need to cover subgeneric taxa at all?

> (section, division, whatever). [An interesting 
> by-product of this rule is that subgenera within subgenera are 
> possible under ICZN, so that the Linnean system is not inherently 
> hierarchical 
	Oh? I was under the impression that the ICZN Code was the very
paragon of nomenclature. At least, that's what some of its supporters seem
to think. Then again, some of them apparently think Carl von Linne is
still alive. ;)



Feedback to <> is welcome!