[Taxacom] Drosophila melanogaster name change?
gread at actrix.gen.nz
Thu Apr 8 21:04:33 CDT 2010
Nice to have these discussions when it's now futile to do so.
>>> On 9/04/2010 at 10:30 a.m., Kim van der Linde <kim at kimvdlinde.com> wrote:
> Well, we asked for designation of Drosophila melanogaster as the type
species. Nothing more. See
Thanks. But why Kim would you think that was logical in the first place?
It ain't to me, nor apparently to those who should know best.
Moving on to quote from the application (and as Kim just mentioned) "A
vast number of publications refer only to Drosophila when Drosophila
melanogaster is actually meant; the two names tend to be used
Wow! And this is a genus of up to 2250 species. 2250 different genomes.
Those authors must all be biological idiots. Are you sure? :-)
Okay, it's very careless but just below a hanging offence when there can
be no confusion over what species is reported upon (see nxt para), but at
least one binomial 'melanogaster' mention to kick off _is_ and was
absolutely necessary, especially now that the genus for melanogaster is
going to change.
Has anyone found cryptic - within 'melanogaster' - species, or confusables
- as they have in Hirudo medicinalis and some other 'model' organism
More information about the Taxacom