[Taxacom] Drosophila melanogaster name change?

Kim van der Linde kim at kimvdlinde.com
Fri Apr 9 20:58:10 CDT 2010



On 4/9/2010 9:23 PM, Karl Magnacca wrote:
> On Fri, April 9, 2010 2:41 pm, Kim van der Linde wrote:
>>> Yes, but it would be diagnosable genus, as opposed to the four you
>>> are proposing to set up.
>>
>> Okay, lets go with this for the moment. What would those apomorphies
>> be?
>
> Diagnosis by plesiomorphy (or more appropriately, lack of
> apomorphies) is still diagnosis.  Is it ideal?  No.  But it's better
> than putting "Drosophilidae gen."

Well, so nothing is changing with regard to that.

>> Nah. Because the species currently not assigned to a proper
>> subgenus/radiation can stay in Drosophila, and so there is no real
>> problem, as they do not change their name. They are called now
>> Drosophila, they will be called Drosophila.
>
> This makes no sense.  If Drosophila s.l. is split up and Drosophila
> s.s. is restricted to the clade with funebris, leaving them called
> "Drosophila" means that a large portion of them will be in the wrong
> genus.  For some of them it may not even be possible to ever do so,
> depending on the condition of the types and how common they are.

Right. So, what you are saying is that we should not do it because it 
would maybe place some species in the wrong genus. You are right, 
currently, the genus Drosophila is very informative about the taxonomic 
status of a species, basically somewhere in between the 12 included genera:
Idiomyia
Scaptomyza
Hirtodrosophila
Mycodrosophila
Paramycodrosophila
Zaprionus
Xenophorticella
Dettopsomyia
Liodrosphila
Samoaia
Lordiphosa and
Dichaetophora.

No, it is obvious that the genus indication Drosophila is very 
informative. Not. The most informative way of indicating the position 
and phylogenetic relationship of a species within the genus is to 
mention which included genus is it's sister clade.

But there are more considerations. In the past years, I have followed 
what happened with the unplaced species that did find a place, and a 
substantial part of those species ended up in other genera than Drosophila.

Finally, many of those species could be in clades that are not even been 
recovered in phylogenetic studies. And that means that the more species 
we sequence, the more complex a revision of the genus is going to be, 
just because Drosophila consists of even more independent clades.

Kim




More information about the Taxacom mailing list