Message 2001-06-0014: Vermes

Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:55:01 -0400 (EDT)

[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" <>
To: [unknown]
Cc: -PhyloCode Mailing List- <>
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.

 Home Page               <>
  The Dinosauricon        <>
   personal                <> --> <>
    Dinosauricon-related    <>
     AOL Instant Messenger   <Ric Blayze>
      ICQ                     <77314901>
       Yahoo! Messenger        <Mighty Odinn>


Feedback to <> is welcome!