[Taxacom] Very bad paraphyly

Joshua A. Ludtke joshualudtke at gmail.com
Mon Apr 6 13:21:33 CDT 2009

Hi folks,

Just to clarify my bad wording from an earlier email, Walker's 5th
edition does the same thing with this species/genus cluster that
Walker's 4th edition does: recognize only the genus Octomys, with two
species within it, one of these species being moved back to the
resurrected genus Tympanoctomys by Mares et al. 2000. (at least that's
my guess on what happened, I'm not sure directly what Mares et al.
2000 said because I can't find it on pdf)

Not sure what the 6th edition of Walker's does since I do not have
that in this office, would appreciate if anyone out there had a copy
and wouldn't mind checking.

So going back to a pre-Mares et al. nomenclature wherein these 2 or 3
hypothetical daughter genera are placed back into their parental
genus, re-establishing Octomys as a monophyletic diploid and
tetraploid genus is the Kinman solution. Anyone else have any
alternative nomenclatural suggestions?

More information about the Taxacom mailing list