[Taxacom] Drosophila melanogaster name change?
SGaimari at cdfa.ca.gov
Thu Apr 15 23:56:19 CDT 2010
Don't assume that makes all of these combinations somehow safe. They could end up placed in a different genus with an older name. This of course happens all the time, and science moves on. Do you think that each time a popular combination (or a popular genus) is threatened by a generic synonymy or by the phylogenetic hypothesis du jour, that it should become a matter of ICZN action to preserve it? I think that specifically is contrary to the principle of nomenclatural stability.
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu on behalf of Kim van der Linde
Sent: Thu 4/15/2010 7:26 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Drosophila melanogaster name change?
Lets see which of these are even at risk to loose their name in case of
a split in the genus they belong to (quick check, I might have missed
some details in some cases, in that case, just correct me):
> Homo sapiens 25.100.000
> Escherichia coli 8.350.000
> Mus musculus 4.110.000
> Caenorhabditis elegans 1.720.000
> Saccharomyces cerevisiae 2.710.000
> Trypanosoma brucei 2.570.000
> Arabidopsis thaliana 2.000.000
> Oryza sativa 1.720.000
> Drosophila melanogaster 1.550.000
Not type species. And even in scientific literature often indicated by
its genus name only, which has 5,850,000 hits....
> Zea mays 1.550.000
> Tyrannosaurus rex 985.000
Renamed long ago, nice example of acceptance by the public of name
> Rattus norvegicus 939.000
I think I made my point.
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
Or (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
More information about the Taxacom