Message 2001-06-0105: Re: species names

Fri, 18 May 2001 23:18:58 -0400

[Previous by date - Re: species names]
[Next by date - Re: hands off genera?]
[Previous by subject - Re: species names]
[Next by subject - Re: species names]

Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 23:18:58 -0400
From: Kevin de Queiroz <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
Subject: Re: species names

*	You would either live with it or apeal to the commission. *

>>> "T. Mike Keesey" <> - 5/18/01 6:16 PM >>>
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Kevin de Queiroz wrote:

> 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.

That might work, if we were certain that all combinations had been
catalogued. What if _Alpha beta_ appears to be uniformly monotypic, and
you convert Genus _Alpha_ to a species (_alpha_), only to find out later
that, in an obscure publication, somebody once assigned another species to

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


Feedback to <> is welcome!