[Previous by date - Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode [was: Re: Lumping Spinosa=]
[Next by date - Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode [was: Re: Lumping Spi=]
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: [unknown]
To: Mailing List - Dinosaur <dinosaur@usc.edu>, Mailing List - PhyloCode <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode [was: Re: Lumping Spi=
(crossposted to the Dinosaur Mailing List and the PhyloCode Mailing L= ist) --- Nick Pharris <npharris@umich.edu> wrote: > Quoting "Jonathan R. Wagner" <jonathan.r.wagner@mail.utexas.edu>: >=20 > > It has been proposed informally (by me) that monotypic genus name= s NOT be > > converted under the PhyloCode. Such names could be used in an inf= ormal > > sense (with quotation marks, an asterisk, or with a note somewher= e in the > > paper to that effect), basically as "placeholders" conferring acc= ess to the > > literature. >=20 > You mean like _"Suchomimus" tenerensis_ or _Baryonyx* walkeri_? >=20 > Why not just have the "genus" name be _the_ name? Because it is never really clear if it is monotypic or not. For example, you might say _Baryonyx_ is monotypic, but others might = consider it to have two or even three species (_tenerensis_ and maybe _lappare= nti_). There are thousands of other examples (_Triceratops_? _Gorilla_? _Pterodactylus_? _Tyrannosaurus_? etc.) You can't objectively say that a genus is monotypic, so this cannot b= e a straightforward method for conversion. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> T. Michael Keesey <http://dino.lm.com/contact> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =09=09 _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com