Message 2001-06-0015: Re: Vermes

Sat, 21 Apr 2001 20:17:46 +0200

[Previous by date - Vermes]
[Next by date - Re: Vermes]
[Previous by subject - Re: Validity of *Tyrannosaurus stanwinstonorum* Pickering (1996)]
[Next by subject - Re: Vermes]

Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 20:17:46 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <>
To: PhyloCode mailing list <>
Subject: Re: Vermes

> > If phylodoce goes forward, as some like to think it should, I will name
> > 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.

Just out of curiosity, is somebody already working on the companion volume?

> 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).

Good idea.

> Maybe there should also be one against conversions that
> drastically change membership. Not sure how this should be worded, though
> -- tricky.

Why? Juristic texts such as the ICZN are full of unclear words like


Feedback to <> is welcome!