[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Yay! Cladobabble! :-)

To: mightyodinn@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Yay! Cladobabble! :-)
From: Nick Pharris <npharris@umich.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:10:29 -0400
Cc: Mailing List - Dinosaur <dinosaur@usc.edu>
In-reply-to: <20030618182240.30996.qmail@web21309.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20030618182240.30996.qmail@web21309.mail.yahoo.com>
Reply-to: npharris@umich.edu
Sender: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu

Quoting "T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com>:

> This doesn't work, though.
> What genus does the ancestral species of a larger clade belong to?

Its own.

> PhyloCode's solution to this is to make it so the eponymous taxa actually
> rest
> on the type species of the genus, not the genus itself.

Fine.  Doesn't change my contention that the genus has a special status in the 
nomenclatural system.

Nick Pharris
Department of Linguistics
University of Michigan

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Yay! Cladobabble! :-)
  - From: "T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com>

References:
- Re: Yay! Cladobabble! :-)
  - From: "T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Archaeopteryx
Next by Date: Re: Yay! Cladobabble! :-)
Previous by thread: Re: Yay! Cladobabble! :-)
Next by thread: Re: Yay! Cladobabble! :-)
Indexes: