[Taxacom] Generic type of large genus belongs in different genus

Ken Kinman kinman at hotmail.com
Sun Apr 7 21:06:58 CDT 2013

Hi Doug,
        Yes, I agree that the Drosophila case was rather different, and I also agree with Frank that a decision in this case could be rather different than in the Drosophila case.  Therefore, I think a petition to the ICZN to change the type species would likely be successful in this case.  By the way, I was under the impression that the genus which Alan was discussing was an animal genus, or was I wrong about that Alan?  But whether it be ICZN or ICBN, I still think changing the type species of the large genus would be the best solution and thus would be adopted.

> Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:37:52 -0700
> From: dyanega at ucr.edu
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Generic type of large genus belongs in different genus
> On 4/7/13 5:01 PM, Kim van der Linde wrote:
> > On 4/7/2013 6:45 PM, Ken Kinman 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.
> > Maybe it is was the botanical commission it could work. The zoologists
> > could not even muster to protect Drosophila melanogaster, so do not
> > expect much from them..... ;-)
> >
> The subgenus Drosophila contains a very large number of species, and the 
> petition was to eliminate its type species, by replacing it with a 
> species (melanogaster) that was the type species of a different subgenus 
> entirely - so, not only would the generic AND subgeneric names of all 
> the former subgenus Drosophila have to be changed, but the subgeneric 
> names of all the former members of D. (Sophophora), as well. Hundreds of 
> well-established names would have been changed by assigning a new type 
> species in that case. In the botanical case above, assigning a new type 
> species would mean all of the names in the large group could be left 
> *un*changed. That is essentially the *opposite* situation, and were it 
> our decision, we'd probably support it; the ICZN will typically vote for 
> the option that preserves the most names.
> Sincerely,
> -- 
> Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
> Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega
> phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
> http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
> "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
> is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 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 mailing list