[Taxacom] On genera, splitting and ranking
xelaalex at cox.net
Fri Jul 12 20:11:57 CDT 2013
This is a great thread, etc.
As Rich Pyle indicated, it is not only genera but all higher categories.
When one examines the historical record, we clearly see the trend to
continue to split more finely and to create NEW taxa.
And today with impact factors, etc., it is critical to publish NEW
So, today as yesterday, the reward is on publishing NEW, and that means in
reference to higher groups, splitting existing concepts.
And it is clear as Hennig years ago pointed out, there is NOTHING Scientific
about the current trend in splitting, etc. There is NO objective SCIENTIFIC
standard for ranking of taxonomic categories.
So what in one part of the clade (Diptera) would meanly be considered a
genus, in another part of the clade is ranked as a family (Inbiomyiidae).
What is clear in Diptera, IS when there are general users, the public,
biologists, etc., and for them the generic concept remains conservative.
So, most still accept, for example, AEDES, for the common vectors of various
disease; or DROSOPHILA for melanogaster, the genetic model, etc.,
instead of the split classifications of Stegomyia or Sophophora.
Oh, well ...
From: Scott Thomson
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] On genera
This thread seems to have been split, but I wanted to reply to this part of
it also. I also agree that this is what we currently do. I think it was
this comment I was referring to when I mentioned splitting and lumping in
the other thread. My personal view is that a lot of thought should go into
wether or not to describe a genus, significant evidence, and much more than
I often see should be presented to demonstrate the need for a genus.
Equally there should not be fear, or bias, or whatever it is against
lumping genera. I am hopeful that we can eventually get to a better
definition of the genus. But its not there yet.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Richard Pyle
<deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>wrote:
> I completely agree with Jason on this:
> > I would strongly agree that it is a taxonomic convenience so we can
> > communicate better and break down biodiversity for our understanding. I
> > would disagree with the need for monophyly though, and rather push for
> > non-polyphyletic genera, at least until taxonomists show some restraint
> > naming genera, or at least an equal enthusiasm for synonymizing them.
> Moreover, I would extend this to all taxonomic ranks.
> P.S. Yes, I meant *all*.
> This message is only intended for the addressee named above. Its contents
> may be privileged or otherwise protected. Any unauthorized use,
> or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited. If you have
> received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply
> mail or by collect telephone call. Any personal opinions expressed in
> message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
> (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.
29400 Rt 6
Youngsville, PA, 16371
(814) 230 1151
cell - (814) 779 8457
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
(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