[Taxacom] Global counts of accepted genera

Tony Rees tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Tue Mar 31 13:14:52 CDT 2020


Well, that figure is a mean value (min. 47%, max 74%) so the range is still
a bit uncertain (plenty of names to research further at this time); I would
not be surprised if the final value is a bit lower than the mean, but this
is what the data say at the present time; also the % of accepted names
varies by group - you can do your own dissecting via the summary data
presented in the paper, or download the data file and play with it further.
I would generally expect a higher degree of synonymy (lower % of accepted
names) in the longer and well studied groups / charismatic mega fauna and
-flora; somebody could maybe take a look. However for e.g. angiosperms at
least, the mean value is not too different (mean accepted: 20,800 -odd, of
41,400-odd total generic names in the system); Mammalia not too different...

I am aware that there are a lot of synonyms for some highly charismatic
names - e.g. over 10 for "Physeter" (sperm whale), see e.g.
https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxlist&searchpar=0&tComp=is&tName=Physeter&genera_only=on
.
The corollary of this and others like it must be that there are a lot of
other genera without synonyms, in order to keep the balance of
synonyms:accepted names anywhere  near 1:1...

Additional insights very welcome,

Regards - Tony

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 20:53, Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at freeler.nl>
wrote:

> So some sixty percent of all published generic
> names is deemed current? That seems like a
> high percentage; perhaps this is a testimony of
> a backlog in taxonomic work?
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tony Rees via Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> To: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; "Tony Rees"
> <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 4:40 AM
> Subject: [Taxacom] Global counts of accepted genera
>
>
> > Dear Taxacomers,
> >
> > Have you ever wondered how many genus names for accepted taxa have been
> > published, broken down by taxonomic group? and/or "all names", synonyms
> > (sensu lato) included (together with the actual lists of names as a
> > downloadable file) - well, the following newly published paper in the
> > journal "Megataxa" goes some way to answering these questions:
> >
> > Rees et al., 2020: "All genera of the world: an overview and estimates
> > based on the March 2020 release of the Interim Register of Marine and
> > Nonmarine Genera (IRMNG)"
> > https://www.mapress.com/j/mt/article/view/megataxa.1.2.3
> >
> > In case this is of interest, in the present "interesting" times...
> >
> > Regards to all - Tony
> > Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> > https://about.me/TonyRees
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, 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
> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years,
> 1987-2020.
> >
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>


More information about the Taxacom mailing list