[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
From: [unknown]
To: DML <dinosaur@usc.edu>, PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
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" <stygimoloch81@hotmail.com>
To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode
> >From: "T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.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.