[Taxacom] Now 2 species/genera in Placozoa...
tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Sun Aug 5 17:35:54 CDT 2018
>From my (limited) comprehension of the molecular data, the 2 presently
described species are just representatives of 2 very distinct molecular
groupings, see diagram at
On a purely hypothetical basis, I do not see why a newly described species
could not be placed in its own genus or any other desired higher taxon
(even kingdom), if that is used as a proxy for its claimed morphological or
Regards - Tony
Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 at 08:22, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> I don't agree with putting the new species in a new genus! Genera cannot
> be correlated consistently with degree or "depth" of divergence, and really
> only serve to separate convenient monophyletic groups, but there is no gain
> in separating two species into two separate genera.
> On Mon, 6/8/18, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Subject: [Taxacom] Now 2 species/genera in Placozoa...
> To: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Received: Monday, 6 August, 2018, 10:09 AM
> In case anypne interested missed it, there
> are now 2 described
> species/genera in Placozoa, doubling
> the size of that curious phylum:
> They still all look the same,
> apparently, but that's another issue.
> Regards - Tony
> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions
> to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
> searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the
> Web, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the
> list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting
> Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
More information about the Taxacom