[Previous by date - Re: Nomina Conversa]
[Next by date - Re: Vermes]
[Previous by subject - Validity of *Tyrannosaurus stanwinstonorum* Pickering (1996)]
[Next by subject - Viruses?]
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:55:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
To: [unknown]
Cc: -PhyloCode Mailing List- <PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Vermes
cross-posted to the PhyloCode Mailing List
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Mark Siddall wrote:
> If phylodoce goes forward, as some like to think it should, I will name Boa
> constrictor
Isn't it _Constrictor constrictor_ now?
> and Lumbricus terrestris as the two taxa (node based definition)
> of the newly established Vermes.
The companion volume might well establish _Coelomata_ as a
heterodefinitional senior synonym. See also Recommendation 9C.
This relates to a current discussion on the PhyloCode Mailing List. It
seems like it might be a good idea to advance a Recommendation for not
converting paraphyletic taxa when there is a pre-existing name for the
monophyletic group (e.g., don't expand _Amphibia_ when _Tetrapoda_ is
available). Maybe there should also be one against conversions that
drastically change membership. Not sure how this should be worded, though
-- tricky.
_____________________________________________________________________________
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
Home Page <http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>
The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
personal <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
Dinosauricon-related <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com>
AOL Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
ICQ <77314901>
Yahoo! Messenger <Mighty Odinn>