[Taxacom] Very bad paraphyly

[Hovenkamp, P. (Peter)]

It would be so much more convenient if people just checked with you
before they erected a genus...


Peter Hovenkamp
Nationaal Herbarium Nederland, Leiden branch
www.nationaalherbarium.nl  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of 
> Kenneth Kinman
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:33 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] Very bad paraphyly
> 
> Dear All,
>      What needs to be done to eventually convince strict 
> cladists to accept occasional paraphyly is to clean up all 
> the bad paraphyly out there.  This morning I discovered such 
> a case in mammals.
>       The genus Octomys is a perfectly good genus.  However, 
> the polyploid "genera" Tympanoctomys and Pipanacoctomys 
> almost certainly make it paraphyletic, and this is completely 
> unacceptable.  They should all be regarded as species within 
> Octomys.  I have never regarded Tympanoctomys as a full 
> genus, and I frankly don't know why the 3rd Edition of Mammal 
> Species of the World does so.  Likewise the more recently 
> described Pipanacotomys (in 2000) should have been described 
> as a subgenus at most.  As one who supports occasional 
> paraphyly, I find this kind of paraphyly highly embarrassing 
> (even though it doesn't involve a major, widespread taxon).
>            --------Ken Kinman    
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with 
> either of these methods:
> 
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>