Message 2001-06-0113: Re: species names

Mon, 21 May 2001 15:54:45 -0400 (EDT)

[Previous by date - Re: finalization of PhyloCode "behind closed doors"]
[Next by date - RE: On naming taxa]
[Previous by subject - Re: species names]
[Next by subject - Re: species under PhyloCode]

Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:54:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: "T. Mike Keesey" <>
To: "Jonathan R. Wagner" <znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU>
Cc: -PhyloCode Mailing List- <>
Subject: Re: species names

On Sat, 19 May 2001, Jonathan R. Wagner wrote:

>         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?

You might even go the other way ... For fossil organisms, there is no real
way to identify species, at least according to most definitions of
"species". So perhaps it is the species that should be dispensed with in
this case, not the genera (which would persist as clades).

(How's that for extreme? :)

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


Feedback to <> is welcome!