[Previous by date - RE: Fetching Email Archives]
[Next by date - Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode [was: Re: Lumping Spi=]
[Previous by subject - Minor rewordings of Article 17?]
[Next by subject - Moore's hybrid example]
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:05:32 -0500
From: [unknown]
To: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>
Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu, phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu, mike@indexdata=
Subject: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode [was: Re: Lumping Spinosa=
It has been proposed informally (by me) that monotypic genus names NO= T be=20 converted under the PhyloCode. Such names could be used in an informa= l=20 sense (with quotation marks, an asterisk, or with a note somewhere in= the=20 paper to that effect), basically as "placeholders" conferring access = to the=20 literature. This would also apply to quasi-monotypic genera, where al= l of=20 the included species are suspected of being synonymous, or where most= of=20 them are fragmentary, or where there is debate about the scope of the= =20 traditional genus. I suspect that this is the best approach to take with the "spinosaurs= ."=20 Better to avoid defining very exclusive clades now, and prevent the n= eed=20 for endless revision and appeals to the CPN later! Jon