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

[Kim van der Linde]

On 4/7/2013 8:37 PM, Doug Yanega wrote:
> On 4/7/13 5:01 PM, Kim van der Linde wrote:
>> 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.

The clade with the type species in Drosophila is actually the SMALLEST 
of the four clades. Two drosophila subgenus clades will change name 
regardless, and the third one is relative small. This was spelled out in 
the case, but was generally ignored and still an urban legend.

Kim