[Previous by date - Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode]
[Next by date - unsubscribe]
[Previous by subject - Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode [was: Re: Lumping Spi=]
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:59:58 +0200
To: DML <email@example.com>, PML <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode
Entire message forwarded for the PhyloCode list... my comment is at t= he bottom. ----- Original Message ----- =46rom: "Michael de Sosa" <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 2:48 PM Subject: Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode > >From: "T. Michael Keesey" <email@example.com> > > >Furthermore, as pointed out above, there are hardly any cases wher= e 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 speci= es > >address, it could still be used; it's not as though there is a pro= posal to > >convert only non-monotypic genera. > > All right, good point. In reality there is probably a sp. out there > somewhere for every supposedly monotypic genus, throwing a wrench > in the works. So there goes that idea. > > Still, there ought to be a way to conserve the names of currently monotypic > genera in a meaningful way. Like as a stem group based on a type sp= ecimen > and excluding all other type specimens unless they are found to act= ually > represent the same species. Or as a stem group based on the autapom= orphies > of that type specimen, in such a way that if a new specimen was fou= nd to > have some, but not all, of those apomorphies then it could be assig= ned to a > new species within the same "genus"... but then the definition of t= he > "genus" would have to change to only include those apomorphies shar= ed by > *both* species. Hmmm. I guess this is a discussion for that other l= ist now. > Even if it's just a clade address or a marker or something, I still= think > using an existing generic name is preferable to a number, both for > historical and aesthetic reasons (what's the point of naming a spec= ies > melanolimnetes if it can't have Eucritta in front of it? :)). I think the answer is quite simple. Once there will be a code for spe= cies names, let's make a Recommendation against converting the species of monotypic genera. Means, *melanolimnetes* will not be converted, whil= e *Eucritta* will be a LITU, as long as no new discoveries will be made= . There's currently no point in calling it a species _anyway_! = By far most species concepts are not applicable to this lone fossil. It make= s some sense to define a clade that has it as a specifier; it makes little t= o no sense, at the moment at least, to use it as the type specimen of a sp= ecies.