[Previous by date - Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode [was: Re: Lumping Spi=]
[Next by date - Fw: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - Re: Minor rewordings of Article 17?]
[Next by subject - Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode]
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 12:43:09 +0200
From: [unknown]
To: DML <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Cc: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode
> 1) For species in genera that are always considered monotypic (Afrovenator, > Nothronychus), we have the opportunity to retain the more familiar = generic > tag for the species, so do it. > 2) For species in genera that are sometimes considered junior synon= yms, but > are still well-known to the community (Tarbosaurus, Suchomimus), us= e the > generic names. Everyone will know what you are talking about anyway= , and > this will also free up the name of the senior synonym (Tyrannosauru= s, > Baryonyx) to be used for its type species. > 3) For species in genera that are never monotypic (Psittacosaurus, > Diplodocus), the genus name will be retained as the name of a clade= , so you > have to use the specific epithet anyway. In short... generic names should refer to the smallest possible clade= that historical usage allows, and species should only be converted when th= ere are several in such a minimalistic genus? ... That's a good idea, IMHO --= =20 especially considering the fact that by far most species criteria are= not applicable to by far most fossils...