[Previous by date - Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode [was: Re: Lumping Spi=]
[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]
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:30:04 -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
--- Michael de Sosa <stygimoloch81@hotmail.com> wrote: > Jonathan Wagner wrote: > >I think many people would agree with the idea that a name that= =20 > >traditionally refers to a species should be used for a species, an= d a name=20 > >that has traditionally NOT been used for a species should NOT be u= sed for a=20 > >species. Regardless of how much easier it is to remember one or th= e other,=20 > >swapping names between two different categories of taxa (clades an= d=20 > >populations) is a pretty bad idea. >=20 > But for many fossil genera with only one known species, the generic= name HAS=20 > traditionally been used for the species. A name like Minmi paravert= ebra is=20 > redundant, as it only refers to one population (actually only one= =20 > *individual*). So assuming we do need to reduce the name of the pop= ulation=20 > to a single term, a brief perusal of the literature will quickly de= monstrate=20 > which name has traditionally been used, over and over again, to des= cribe the=20 > population, both in the text of papers and in phylogenetic diagrams= . The=20 > name *paravertebra* is used maybe once, just for appearances, if at= all.=20 > After that it's all *Minmi* this and *Minmi* that. Actually, there is a specimen (from Marathon Station, Queensland) ref= erred to _Minmi sp._ -- thus it's not clear that this genus is monotypic. =20 > I guess I don't see the point of making a name *less* precise and t= hen=20 > attaching a citation or a marker to make it *more* precise again, o= r of=20 > putting the generic name in quotes in front of the species name to = "confer=20 > access to the literature" when you can just use the generic name wh= ich is=20 > actually *used* in the literature and save yourself some time in= =20 > cross-referencing. But I see you have different priorities and your= =20 > reasoning makes sense in that context. *shrug* _Minmi_ and _M. paravertebra_ refer to different taxonomic entities. = References to _Minmi_ in the literature do not necessarily refer just to _M. paravertebra_, even if it is the only named species. _Minmi_ is under= stood to encompass a larger group. (The Marathon Station specimen, for example= , may or may not be from a different species -- momentarily ignoring the separ= ate question of what exactly a species is.....) Furthermore, as pointed out above, there are hardly any cases where a= genus is unequivocally monotypic. And even where it may seem to be, there may = be literature that is being overlooked. And even if that is not the case= , there may be a desire to place future discoveries in a new species of that = genus. Of course, if _Minmi_ were converted to a clade or used as a species = address, it could still be used; it's not as though there is a proposal to con= vert only non-monotypic genera. =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!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail=20