[Previous by date - Re: species names]
[Next by date - Re: species names]
[Previous by subject - Re: species names]
[Next by subject - Re: species names]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 18:16:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
To: -PhyloCode Mailing List- <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: species names
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Kevin de Queiroz wrote:
> To solve this problem, the rule could be more strict in insisting not
> only on monotypy in the opinion of the converting author but also that
> not more than a single species had ever been named in the genus.
That might work, if we were certain that all combinations had been
catalogued. What if _Alpha beta_ appears to be uniformly monotypic, and
you convert Genus _Alpha_ to a species (_alpha_), only to find out later
that, in an obscure publication, somebody once assigned another species to
_Alpha_?
_____________________________________________________________________________
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
Home Page <http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>
The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
personal <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
Dinosauricon-related <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com>
AOL Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
ICQ <77314901>
Yahoo! Messenger <Mighty Odinn>