[Previous by date - Re: species names]
[Next by date - Re: species names]
[Previous by subject - Re: species names]
[Next by subject - Re: species names]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:25:39 -0600 (CST)
From: znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU
To: Kevin de Queiroz <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
Cc: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: species names
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Kevin de Queiroz wrote: [concerning the use of a genus name as the specific epithet for a the type of a monospecific genus] > Jacques Gauthier has also made this point to me several times in conversations. It is definitely something we should consider when preparing the species part of the PhyloCode. I am HIGHLY opposed to this sort of proceedure, mostly because there there are many cases where one man's monotypic genus is another's polytypic genus, etc. Generic taxonomy is difficult enough without adding this level of added difficulty. For those of a dinosaurian bent, an example: Some people consider Prosaurolophus to be a dispecific genus (P. maximus and P. blackfeetensis). Some might consider it a monospecific genus (including Prosaurolophus maximus = P. blackfeetensis). A few consider it a junior synonym of Saurolophus (including S. osborni, S. maximus, and also S. angustirostris... ignoring the dubious s. kritoswhateveri). This latter genus is its own problem, as it currently included two widely accepted species, but several of us are of the opinion that they are probably synonymous. To conclude: species should have SPECIES epithets. Trying to wheedle generic epithets into the species name will add a level of confusion we don't want. Worse, the arguments this will spawn won't have any objective meaning, because they will relate to the old, typological genera. Much as it will mean abandoning cherished genus names (or defining them in such a way as they end up being monospecific in practice... that was for you, Keesey), I think it is the most stable and reproduceable way to go. I have been working three jobs and trying to move, so I haven't had a chance to post to this list on an interim "solution" which occurred to me in this context: in cases where a genus name is not converted because it is monotypic, and there exists no defined genus in which to include it, the unconverted name could be given, preceeded by a sympol (e.g., #). I prefer this to the use of quotation marks, because these can have a number of systematic implications (e.g., I don't beklieve in this taxon, someone else called it this, it hasn't been defined yet, etc.) Under this convention, the early avian Archaeopteryx, believed to be sister to all other birds, might be termed #Archaeopteryx lithographica, while Prosaurolophus maximus, certainly sister species (if not ancestor) to Saurolophus spp., could be included in that "former genus" clade as Saurolophus maximus. Or, it could just be termed Hadrosauridae maximus. Later, Wagner