Message 2002-04-0019: Re: genus definitions

Wed, 01 May 2002 09:34:20 -0700 (PDT)

[Previous by date - genus definitions]
[Next by date - Re: genus definitions]
[Previous by subject - Re: finalization of PhyloCode "behind closed doors"]
[Next by subject - Re: genus definitions]

Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 09:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: "T. Michael Keesey" <>
To: Mailing List - PhyloCode <>
Subject: Re: genus definitions

(This is in reply to a message that was intended to go to this list.)

--- JRW <> wrote:
> > In the next version of my website (The Dinosauricon -,
> > I don't want to distinguish between genera and clades. The problem is that
> > few dinosaurian genera have been cladistically defined (the only example I
> > think of is _Archaeopteryx_, IIRC, and that was problematic - more below).
> Does this not beg the question as to how certain fossil dinos ended up in
> the same Genera in the first place?   If a specific Genera for a group of
> species of dinos (who may not even have been contemporaneous in space and
> time) was not based on a cladistic analysis, how can one be sure the Genera
> is "natural"?   I think this is a good example of why Genera, and the other
> levels, need to go, IMHO.

I agree that the levels need to go -- but the names don't. My post is about
using Genus names as clades, not about incorporating actual genera into the

_Tyrannosaurus_, _Homo_, _Drosophila_, _Magnolia_, etc. can continue to exist
in PhyloCode, not as genera, but as clades converted from genera.

=====> T. Michael Keesey <>
=====> The Dinosauricon <>
=====> BloodySteak <>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness


Feedback to <> is welcome!