[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 17:31:55 -0400
From: Kevin de Queiroz <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
To: tmk@dinosauricon.com, phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: species names
To solve this problem, the rule could be more strict in insisting not only = on monotypy in the opinion of the converting author but also that not more = than a single species had ever been named in the genus.=20 >>> "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com> - 5/18/01 5:19 PM >>> On Fri, 18 May 2001, Kevin de Queiroz wrote: > >>> David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> - 5/18/01 2:56 PM >>> > > For species, I support method M, but I think that in monotypic genera = the > genus name rather than the specific epithet should become the species = name, > > because it is usually much more distinct. > > 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. It seems to me there are a number of problems with this, apart from the minimal weirdness of seeing names like _triceratops_ in lower case. Or would it be? Some people consider there to be only one species (_T. horridus_) while other state that there is another species (_T. prorsus_). So should it be changed to _triceratops_ or should _Triceratops_ be a clade with _prorsus_ and _horridus_ as member species? (Many, many other species of _Triceratops_ have been named in the past, but they are now all regarded as _nomina dubia_ or synonyms.) Quite often, whether a genus is monospecific or not is a matter of opinion. It seems preferable to me to just have genera be defined as clades. In this case, a stem-based clade with outgroups _Diceratops hatcheri_ and _Torosaurus latus_ as external specifiers would work. Then whether you think there is one species or two, _Triceratops horridus_ (or /Triceratops/horridus?) will always be valid. Of course, defining genera as clades is tricky business, too....