Message 2004-10-0150: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode [was: Re: Lumping Spinosa=

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:05:32 -0500

[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



  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!