> As for the oft-heard cry that specific epithets are non-unique: WE HEAR
>YOU. Everyone knows this, numerous proposals have been put forth to resolve
>the problem. Personally, I note that if you use the WHOLE species name
>(minus the generic epithet), that is, specific epithet, (species) author,
>and year, nearly all such problems disappear. A simple page-order-based
>consecutive lettering of the year will be sufficient to resolve the
>remainder of the problem (e.g., _medius_ Linneaus 1759b). You can leave off
>the latter parts of the name for convenience, and even add your favorite
>clade-name to the front for clarity (e.g., _Iguanodontia mongoliensis_ vs.
>_Ceratopsia mongoliensis_).
I'd prefer it if the genus names were retained for clarity, but the 'sloppiness' of treating them as species in (for example) surveys of fossil diversity just be acknowledged.
I know the genus doesn't seem to mean anything, but that can be changed, as you said:
> G) We should relegate the "concept" of the genus to the wastebasket. The
>names can (and should) be retained, but only to refer to clades, and only if
>given unambiguous definitions.
And i'd like to add though that when i think of a particular species, i don't think (for example) "Genus: Tyrannosaurus. Species: rex." I think "Species: Tyrannosaurus rex". So eliminating the "concept" of the genus doesn't have to mean changing any names, we could just define "genus" as nothing more than "that extra word we have to make it clearer which animals we mean". To me this seems easier than _effectively_ changing the name of every species in palaeontology.