[Previous by date - Re: hands off genera?]
[Next by date - Re: species names]
[Previous by subject - Re: species names]
[Next by subject - Re: species names]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 17:05:52 -0600 (CST)
From: "Jonathan R. Wagner" <znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU>
To: Kevin de Queiroz <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
Cc: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: species names
At 05:31 PM 5/18/01 -0400, 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.
Or, given that species are the only class of entity recognized under
both systems, we could insist on a direct, one-to-one conversion which
retains (if nothing else) the species epithet of the Linnean binomial
(perhaps modified). I worried about monotypic genera for a long time, then I
decided I don't care. Many of the systematic problems I have dealt with in
working on dinosaurs are centered around the obligatory genus. I'd just as
soon get rid of them all as have to bend over backwards for them.
Tyrannosaurus is important for children's books, but if I ever deal with
that animal, I will be dealing with rex. Maybe this is a bit extreme, but
Phylogenetic Nomenclature is already a bit iconoclastic, no?
:)
Wagner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock, TX 79409-1053
"Why do I sense we've picked up another pathetic lifeform?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi