[Taxacom] Generic type of large genus belongs in different genus
Sharkey, Michael J
msharkey at uky.edu
Sun Apr 7 18:29:05 CDT 2013
You might refer to the small group as xus s.s. and the others as xus s.l.
Placing all members of the larger group in a new polyphyletic genus would create more confusion in the future. Seems like few will be using the names so little potential harm in the short term.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 7, 2013, at 6:47 PM, "Ken Kinman" <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Alan,
> Given that this type species is relatively unknown, and that it is going to cause messes for both the old large genus and the newly named small genus, I would be very tempted to petition the International Commission to have a new type species designated for the larger genus. This would protect the large genus from many name changes, as well as the new small genus (which already has a type species). Probably would be best to consult other authorities in advance of such a petition to determine what would be an appropriate choice for the new type species. I would be hesitant to just let the problem fester waiting for a generic revision that apparently isn't coming anytime in the near future.
> ------------Ken Kinman
>> Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 13:52:17 -0400
>> From: aharvey at georgiasouthern.edu
>> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Subject: [Taxacom] Generic type of large genus belongs in different genus
>> This is probably a straightforward issue, but I haven't dealt with
>> nomenclatural issues for a while and I seem to keep getting lost in the
>> Several years ago, I discovered that, along with three other species, the
>> type species for a large, worldwide genus (well over 100 species) clearly
>> didn't belong in the same genus as the others. Unfortunately, the type
>> species itself is relatively unknown, and two of its three relatives were
>> as yet undescribed, whereas the genus s.l. contains many common, well
>> studied species.
>> Well, I changed my research focus without ever dealing with this issue.
>> Recently, however, I found that one of these species (not the generic type,
>> though) was placed, without comment, into a new genus erected to solve a
>> different problem involving taxa on the other side of the planet.
>> So if the placement of "my" species into this new genus is correct, then we
>> have a small, distinct genus that should contain the type species of a
>> different, much larger genus (actually, we had this problem before, but now
>> the small genus unfortunately has a name!).
>> It seems to me that a strict interpretation of the Code says that the
>> original genus name should be drastically restricted to the handful of
>> species related to the original type species, and that the other 100+
>> species should get a different name. In addition to the "*Brontosaurus*"
>> problem, though, there's no reason to assume that all these other species
>> represent a monophyletic group, so it's not clear that giving them all some
>> other generic name is correct either (and I don't foresee a monographic
>> treatment of this genus anytime soon!).
>> Any suggestions as to how this should best be handled?
>> Thanks very much!
>> Alan Harvey
>> Professor of Biology and Curator of the Herbarium
>> President, Georgia Entomological Society
>> Georgia Southern University
>> Statesboro, GA 30460-8042
>> (912) 478-5784
>> fax (912) 478-0845
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>> (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
>> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
More information about the Taxacom