[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>
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: species names
* You would either live with it or apeal to the commission. * >>> "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com> - 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 _Alpha_? ___________________________________________________________________________= __ T. MICHAEL KEESEY Home Page **************<http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>; *The Dinosauricon *******<http://dinosauricon.com>; **personal ***************<keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com> ***Dinosauricon-related ***<dinosaur@dinosauricon.com> ****AOL Instant Messenger **<Ric Blayze> *****ICQ ********************<77314901> ******Yahoo! Messenger *******<Mighty Odinn>