[Previous by date - Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode]
[Next by date - Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - Fw: Minor rewordings of Article 17?]
[Next by subject - Fw: Must read!]
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 12:45:53 +0200
From: [unknown]
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Fw: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode
This is the post I just answered to. Before you tear the author to as= many pieces as *Ficus* the plant has species, please read the 2nd-to-last paragraph. :^) ----- Original Message ----- =46rom: "Michael de Sosa" <stygimoloch81@hotmail.com> To: <dinosaur@usc.edu> Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 11:29 AM Subject: Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode [was: Re: Lumping Spinosauridae Redux] > > > 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 mig= ht > >consider it to have two or even three > >species (_tenerensis_ and maybe _lapparenti_). > >There are thousands of other examples (_Triceratops_? _Gorilla_? > >_Pterodactylus_? _Tyrannosaurus_? etc.) > > > >You can't objectively say that a genus is monotypic, so this canno= t be a > >straightforward method for conversion. > > No, we may not know if *Tyrannosaurus* is monotypic, but we DO know > *Tyrannosaurus rex* is monotypic and we DO know *Tarbosaurus bataar= * is > monotypic. > > By implementing PhyloCode and only recognizing monophyletic taxa, w= e are > trying to make things more precise, right? But if you name a specie= s *rex* > you will constantly have to clarify WHICH *rex* you are talking abo= ut > (Tyrannosaurus? Othnielia? Melanocharacidium? Rhododendrum???). So = just call > it *Tyrannosaurus* and everyone will immediately know exactly what = species > you are referring to. It's MUCH more precise. And what about people= who also > associate Tyrannosaurus with *bataar* as well as *rex*? Well let's = just call > the Mongolian species *Tarbosaurus*. Even now, if you say *Tarbosau= rus* to a > dinosaur paleontologist, they know exactly what species you're refe= rring to, > even if they don't think it deserves its own genus. Works the same = way with > Baryonyx and Suchomimus. > > In dinosaur paleontology (at least), generic names are usually far = more > familiar to people -- specialist, non-specialist and layperson alik= e --=20 than > species names. If we are going to assign one-word names to species = that > already HAVE well-established one-word names... why not carry them = over? > > Which list do you process quicker? > > Tyrannosaurus rex > Tarbosaurus bataar > Baryonyx walkeri > Suchomimus -OR- tenerensis > Dryosaurus altus > Dysalotosaurus lettowvorbecki > Brachiosaurus altithorax > Giraffatitan brancai > > If you need to have concrete guidelines for when to use generic nam= es, they > could go something like this... > 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. > > Basically, PhyloCode is supposed to be for OUR benefit, right? I'm = not on > some K*nm*n-esque populist rant here... but why make things harder = on > ourselves? Why give a species a name like *rex*, shared with a tril= lion and > a half other species, when you have the opportunity to use a brilli= ant, > instantly recognizable name like Tyrannosaurus? > > Mike D