[Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Dec 18 14:00:38 CST 2017
Yes, that was in essence my point - different meanings of the same term in different contexts.
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 19/12/17, Lynn Raw <lynn at afriherp.org> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: "Javier Luque" <javierluquec at gmail.com>, "Tony Rees" <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>, "Thomas Pape" <tpape at snm.ku.dk>, "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "AlanWeakley" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
Received: Tuesday, 19 December, 2017, 8:44 AM
Stephen,
If you refer to the glossary in Ernst
Mayr's "Principles of Systematic Zoology" (1969) on page 407
you will see his definition of monotypic (and of polytypic
on page 409). It has nothing to do with the nomenclatural
type species or specimens but rather refers to the number of
immediately subordinate taxa contained within the monotypic
or polytypic taxon.
Lynn
> On 18 Dec 2017, at 20:15, Stephen
Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:
>
> None of this has any bearing on
the more informal usage of the term "monotypic" for genera
with only a single species. Words mean whatever people use
them to mean. It is interesting that the adjectival form
"monotypic" is rarely used in the nomenclatural context,
where the noun "monotypy" is used. It would sound odd to say
that a genus which now has hundreds of species is monotypic,
but perhaps strictly speaking correct if it was originally
based on a single species!
>
> Stephen
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 19/12/17, Thomas Pape
<tpape at snm.ku.dk>
wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] monotypic
or monobasic
> To: "Javier Luque" <javierluquec at gmail.com>,
"Tony Rees" <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
> Cc: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
"Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
> Received: Tuesday, 19 December,
2017, 6:48 AM
>
>>>> Use of 'monotypy'
*sensu* the
> International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature
> We should not forget that the
Code
> Glossary is part of the
legislative text.
>
> ICZN GLOSSARY:
>
> monotypy, n.
> The situation arising (1) when an
> author establishes a nominal genus
or subgenus for what he
> or she considers to be a single
taxonomic species and
> denotes that species by an
available name (the nominal
> species so named is the
type-species by monotypy) [Art.
> 68.3]; or (2) when an author bases
a nominal species-group
> taxon on a single specimen but
does not explicitly designate
> it as holotype (holotype by
monotypy; see Article 73.1.2).
>
> subsequent monotypy
> The situation arising when a
nominal
> genus or subgenus was established
before 1931 without any
> included nominal species, and when
only a single taxonomic
> species denoted by an available
name was first subsequently
> referred to it [Art. 69.3].
>
> /Thomas Pape
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thomas Pape, Natural History
Museum of
> Denmark
> President of ICZN
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf Of Javier Luque
> Sent: 18. december 2017 18:34
> To: Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
> Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>;
> Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] monotypic
or
> monobasic
>
> Use of 'monotypy' *sensu* the
> International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature
>
> Chapter 15: Types in the genus
group.
>
> "Art. 68.3: Type species by
monotypy.
> When an author establishes a new
nominal genus-group taxon
> for a single taxonomic species and
denotes that species by
> an available name, the nominal
species so named is the type
> species. Fixation by this means is
deemed to be fixation by
> monotypy, regardless of any cited
synonyms, subspecies, or
> unavailable names, and regardless
of whether the author
> considered the nominal genus-group
taxon to contain other
> species which he or she did not
cite by name, and regardless
> of nominal species-group taxa
doubtfully included or
> identified.
>
> 68.3.1. If a new genus is divided
into
> subgenera at the time its name is
established, and if the
> nominotypical subgenus contains
only a single species, that
> nominal species is deemed to be
the type by monotypy of the
> new nominal genus."
> Cheers,
> Javier
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:01 PM,
Tony
> Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In the message below I tried
> internationalizing the links but
they do
>> not seem to work so well -
the
> ones I actually used are here:
>>
>> https://books.google.com.au/books?redir_esc=y&id=Qky7_6-
>>
>
UcQQC&q=monobasic#v=snippet&q=monotypic&f=false
>> https://books.google.com.au/books?redir_esc=y&id=Qky7_6-
>>
>
UcQQC&q=monotypic#v=snippet&q=monotypic&f=false
>>
>> - Tony
>>
>> Tony Rees, New South Wales,
> Australia
>> https://about.me/TonyRees
>>
>> On 18 December 2017 at 16:59,
Tony
> Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>> Definitions from Terms
Used
> in Bionomenclature: The Naming of
>>> Organisms and Plant
> Communities ...edited by D. L.
Hawksworth
>>> here:
>>> https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=Qky7_6-
>>>
>
UcQQC&q=monobasic#v=snippet&q=monobasic&f=false
>>> https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=Qky7_6-
>>>
>
UcQQC&q=monotypic#v=snippet&q=monotypic&f=false
>>>
>>> Regards - Tony
>>>
>>> Tony Rees, New South
Wales,
> Australia https://about.me/TonyRees
>>>
>>> On 18 December 2017 at
00:32,
> Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Notice that this
> definition of "monotypic" is
unequivocally
>> nomenclatural
>>>> (appropriately so, I
> suppose, given its source):
"monotypic genus.
>>>> A
>> genus
>>>> for which a single
> binomial is validly published
(Art. 38.6) (see
>>>> also unispecific)".
> The definition was provided in the
ICNafp only
>>>> for the purposes of
> Article 38.5-6 allowing
simultaneous
>>>> publication of a
genus
>> and
>>>> a species description
> (the description being the same).
>>>>
>>>> This nomenclatural
> definition is contrary to the very
common and
>> standard
>>>> usage in floras and
other
> botanical works along the lines of
>>>> "Ginkgo is
>> a
>>>> monotypic genus, with
> only a single extant
species". This common
>>>> and standard usage is
> "taxonomic", meaning there is only
a single
>>>> currently
> "recognized/accepted" species in
the genus. Even
> leaving
>>>> aside the
>> issue
>>>> of "monotypy" and
extinct
> taxa, Ginkgo (and other prominent
>>>> examples of monotypic
> genera, like Welwitschia) are not
monotypic
>>>> by the ICNafp
> definition.
>>>>
>>>> It's hard to think of
a
> situation (outside the Code itself
or a
>>>> nomenclatural analysis
of
> very rare cases) in which one
would want
>>>> or
>> need
>>>> to use "monotypic" as
> defined narrowly and
nomenclaturally to mean
>>>> a
>> genus
>>>> for which only a
single
> species had ever been validly
published.
>>>>
>>>> And note that the
Code
> seemingly defines "unispecific" by
not
>>>> defining
>> it
>>>> but providing a
> definition that in theory should
replace and mean
>> something
>>>> different than the
very
> narrow nomenclatural definition of
"monotypic":
>>>> "unispecific. [Not
> defined] – with a single
species." The "[Not
>> defined]"
>>>> is explained: "The
> particular usage of a few other
words, not
>>>> defined in the Code,
is
> also indicated; these are
italicized in the
>>>> list below and
>> are
>>>> accompanied by
editorial
> explanation of their use."
>>>>
>>>> Googling "monotypic"
one
> finds contrary definitions, a few
with the
>>>> new narrow
nomenclatural
> definition, but others, like this
one a
>>>> Merriam-Webster,
> reflection the more common
usage: "including a
>>>> single representative
> —used especially of a genus with
only one species".
>>>>
>>>> I thought I'd hit the
> jackpot with a Wikipedia
disambiguation page
>>>> for "Monotype", but:
>>>>
>>>> A monotype is a print
> made by drawing or painting on a
smooth,
>>>> non-absorbent
surface.
>>>>
> Monotype may also
refer to:
>>>>
>
Monotypic taxon, a
> taxonomic group containing only
>>>> one immediately
> subordinate taxon
>>>>
>
Monotype Corporation, a
> typesetting and typeface
>>>> design company
>>>>
>
Monotype System - the
> typesetting machine made by
>>>> the Monotype
Corporation
>>>>
>>>> The joke's on us...
> ;-)
>>>>
>>>> -----Original
> Message-----
>>>> From: Taxacom
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf
>>>> Of Mary Barkworth
>>>> Sent: Saturday,
December
> 16, 2017 6:15 AM
>>>> To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>>>> Subject: Re:
[Taxacom]
> monotypic or monobasic
>>>>
>>>> Hurray! Thank you
Paul.
> It was probably suggested to me by
someone
>>>> as it is not the sort
of
> thing I would have gone out on a
limb over.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original
> Message-----
>>>> From: Taxacom
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf
>>>> Of Paul van
Rijckevorsel
>>>> Sent: Saturday,
December
> 16, 2017 2:37 AM
>>>> To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>>>> Subject: Re:
[Taxacom]
> monotypic or monobasic
>>>>
>>>> Well, "unispecific"
is
> endorsed by the ICNafp, see the
Glossary:
>>>> http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=glo
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original
Message
> -----
>>>> From: "Mary
Barkworth"
> <Mary.Barkworth at usu.edu>
>>>> To: "Les Watling"
<watling at hawaii.edu>;
>
>>>> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>>>> Sent: Friday,
December
> 15, 2017 10:57 PM
>>>> Subject: Re:
[Taxacom]
> monotypic or monobasic
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and then there is
> unispecific. No endorsement for it
but we used
>>>>> it in the FNA
grass
> volumes in response to comments
that
>>>>> monotypic was not
> always appreopriate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Taxacom
<taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> on behalf of
>>>>> Les Watling <watling at hawaii.edu>
>>>>> Sent: Friday,
> December 15, 2017 2:34:51 PM
>>>>> To: Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>>> Subject:
[Taxacom]
> monotypic or monobasic
>>>>>
>>>>> Blackwelder,
(1967),
> p. 517:
>>>>>
>>>>> "If a new genus
is
> proposed for a single species,
that species is
>>>>> automatically the
> genotype, and the genus is said to
be *monobasic*.
>>>>> (The term
> *monotypic* is sometimes used in
this sense, buit it is
>>>>> inappropriate and
> should be avoided.)"
>>>>>
>>>>> News to me.....
> should have paid closer attention
in class!
>>>>>
>>>>> Les
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Les Watling
>>>>> Professor, Dept.
of
> Biology
>>>>> 216 Edmondson
Hall
>>>>> University of
Hawaii
> at Manoa
>>>>> Honolulu, HI
96822
>>>>> Ph. 808-956-8621
>>>>> Cell:
808-772-9563
>>>>> e-mail: watling at hawaii.edu
>>>>>
>>>>> Tweets from
> @WernerTwertzog:
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not own a
> selfie stick because the self does
not exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> When a tree falls
in
> a forest, it does, of course, make
a sound,
>>>>> because, you have
to
> realize, its not all about you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>
>
> --
>>>>> William
Pannapacker
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 15,
2017
> at 8:00 AM,
>>>>> <taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Daily News
from
> the Taxacom Mailing List
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When
responding
> to a message, please do not copy
the entire
>>>>>> digest into
your
> reply.
>>>>>>
>
____________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Today's
Topics:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
1.
> Re: monotypic or monobasic (Lynn
Raw)
>>>>>>
2.
> Re: monotypic or monobasic
(Stephen Thorpe)
>>>>>>
3.
> Three kinds of bacteria
(Negibacteria the oldest) (Kenneth
>>>> Kinman)
>>>>>>
4.
> monotypic monobasic (John Grehan)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------
>>>>>> -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message: 1
>>>>>> Date: Thu, 14
> Dec 2017 20:18:15 +0100
>>>>>> From: Lynn
Raw
> <lynn at afriherp.org>
>>>>>> To: Stephen
> Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>>>>>> Cc: taxacom
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>>>>>> Subject: Re:
> [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
>>>>>> Message-ID:
> <FF14C7A8-C240-4BDD-9F72-95BDFF711725 at afriherp.org>
>>>>>> Content-Type:
> text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From what I
> understand, monobasic is a term
used in chemistry
>>>>>> while
monotypic
> is a term used in taxonomy and
nomenclature.
>>>>>> Definitions
of
> both terms are available in good
dictionaries or even on the
> web.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lynn Raw
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my
> iPad
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14 Dec
> 2017, at 09:49, Stephen Thorpe
>>>>>>> <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Monotypy
is
> a nomenclatural term (ICZN) in
relation to the
>>>>>>> fixation
of
> a
>>>>>> type species
of
> a new genus, but the grammatical
variant
>>>>>> monotypic has
> broader meaning. It is perhaps
ugly to have
>>>>>> variants of
the
> same term with different meanings
(one broader than the
> other)!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stephen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>
--------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> On Thu,
> 14/12/17, Paul van Rijckevorsel
<dipteryx at freeler.nl>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Subject:
> Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or
monobasic
>>>>>>> To:
> "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>>>>>>> Received:
> Thursday, 14 December, 2017, 9:32
PM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The
correct
> term should be
>>>>>>>
> "unispecific".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The term
> "monotypic" sounds
>>>>>>>
> nomenclatural, and
>>>>>>> indeed
has
> been defined
>>>>>>> as a
> nomenclatural term
>>>>>>> in the
> ICNafp. By
>>>>>>> contrast,
> "unispecific" represents a
taxonomic concept
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sometimes
> "monospecific" can be found, but
this is ugly, as it
>>>>>>> is a
hybrid
> combining a Greek and a Latin word
element.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----
> Original Message -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From:
> "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>>>>>>> To:
> "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>;
> "John Grehan"
>>>>>>> <calabar.john at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Sent:
> Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:44
AM
>>>>>>> Subject:
> Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or
monobasic
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I
> expect that these terms don't
have
>>>>>>> very
> precise definitions and that
>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>> may be a
> fair amount of variation in exact
usage. My feeling
>>>>>>> is that
>>>>>>>>
> "monobasic" isn't
>>>>>>> used much
> any more. It presumably means
"with a single
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
basis",
> i.e. "based on a
>>>>>>> single
> species". Monotypic presumably
means "based
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on a
> single type", though
>>>>>>> "type"
> should, I think, be interpreted in
the
>>>>>>>>
general
> sense, not as types in the
>>>>>>>
> nomenclatural sense (i.e. type
species
>>>>>>>> or
type
> specimens), which is a possible
>>>>>>> source of
> confusion. So, a genus
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> just one
> species regarded as valid would be
monotypic, even if
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
single
> species had synonyms (and
>>>>>>> therefore
> more than one type specimen
>>>>>>>>
> included). All nominal genera
obviously
>>>>>>> have only
> one type species, whether
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> not the
> genus is monotypic! Monotypy is
the act of basing a
>>>>>>> new genus
> on
>>>>>>>> a
> single species. I have
>>>>>>> never
seen
> or heard the term "monobasy"! I
also
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> don't
> think that these terms apply
>>>>>>> to
species,
> i.e. basing a new species on
>>>>>>>> a
> single specimen doesn't make the
>>>>>>> species
> mono-anything!
>>>>>>>>
> Stephen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>
--------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> On
Thu,
> 14/12/17, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
> Subject:
>>>>>>> [Taxacom]
> monotypic or monobasic
>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>> "taxacom"
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>>>>>>>>
> Received: Thursday, 14 December,
2017,
>>>>>>> 6:07 PM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear
>>>>>>>
> colleagues,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I
have
>>>>>>> seen the
> terms 'monotypic' and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
'monobasic'
> applied to genera with a
>>>>>>>>
single
> species. I am curious to know if
there is a
>>>>>>>>
> technically correct choice for the
use of these terms for
>>>>>>>> such
> genera. If anyone may be able to
enlighten me as to the
>>>>>>>>
rules,
> if any, governing how these terms
are properly used I
>>>>>>>> would
> be most grateful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John
> Grehan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>
_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
Taxacom
> Mailing List
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>>>>>> The
> Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may
be searched at:
>>>>>>>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Send
> Taxacom mailing
>>>>>>> list
> submissions
>>>>>>>> to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> 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 30 Some
>>>>>>> Years,
> 1987-2017.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>
_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
Taxacom
> Mailing List
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>>>>>> The
> Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may
be
>>>>>>> searched
> at:
>>>>>>>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Send
> Taxacom mailing
>>>>>>> list
> submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>>>>>> 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 30 Some
Years, 1987-2017.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> Deze
> e-mail is gecontroleerd op
>>>>>>> virussen
> door AVG.
>>>>>>>> http://www.avg.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>
_______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Taxacom
> Mailing List
>>>>>>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
>>>>>>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>>>>> The
Taxacom
> Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at:
>>>>>>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Send
> Taxacom mailing list
>>>>>>>
submissions
> to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> 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 30 Some Years,
1987-2017.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>
_______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Taxacom
> Mailing List
>>>>>>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
>>>>>>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>>>>> The
Taxacom
> Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at:
>>>>>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Send
> Taxacom mailing list submissions
to
>> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>>>>> 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 30 Some Years,
>>>>>>>
1987-2017.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message: 2
>>>>>> Date: Thu, 14
> Dec 2017 20:13:15 +0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> From: Stephen
> Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>>>>>> To: Lynn Raw
> <lynn at afriherp.org>
>>>>>> Cc: taxacom
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>>>>>> Subject: Re:
> [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
>>>>>> Message-ID:
> <879602756.4731497.1513282395027 at mail.yahoo.com>
>>>>>> Content-Type:
> text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Monobasic"
> certainly is (or was) also used in
taxonomy, but
>>>>>> perhaps not
so
> much now, and any Google search
only turns up the
>>>>>> chemistry
>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stephen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
--------------------------------------------
>>>>>> On Fri,
> 15/12/17, Lynn Raw <lynn at afriherp.org>
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Subject:
> Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or
monobasic
>>>>>> To:
> "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>>>>>> Cc:
> "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
> "Paul van Rijckevorsel"
>>>>>> < dipteryx at freeler.nl>
>>>>>>
Received:
> Friday, 15 December, 2017, 8:18
AM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From
what
> I understand, monobasic is a
term used in chemistry
>>>>>> while
monotypic
> is a term used in taxonomy
and nomenclature.
>>>>>> Definitions
of
> both terms are available in
good dictionaries or
>>>>>> even on the
> web.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lynn
Raw
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent
from
> my iPad
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On
14
> Dec 2017, at 09:49, Stephen Thorpe
>>>>>> <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
> Monotypy
>>>>>> is a
> nomenclatural term (ICZN) in
relation to the fixation
> of
>>>>>> a type
species
> of a new genus, but the
grammatical variant
>>>>>> monotypic has
> broader meaning. It is perhaps
ugly to have
>>>>>> variants of
the
> same term with different meanings
(one broader than
> the other)!
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
> Stephen
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>
--------------------------------------------
>>>>>> >
On
> Thu, 14/12/17, Paul van
Rijckevorsel
>>>>>> <dipteryx at freeler.nl>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
> Subject:
>>>>>> Re:
> [Taxacom] monotypic or
monobasic >
>>>>>> To:
> "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>> Received:
>>>>>> Thursday,
>> 14
>>>>>> December,
2017,
>>>>>> 9:32
PM
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
The
>>>>>>
correct
> term should be
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
> "unispecific".
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
The
> term "monotypic" sounds
>>>>>> >
> nomenclatural, and
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> indeed
has
> been defined
>>>>>> > as
a
>>>>>>
> nomenclatural term
>>>>>> >
in
> the ICNafp. By
>>>>>> >
> contrast, "unispecific"
>>>>>>
> represents
>>>>>> > a
> taxonomic concept
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
> Sometimes
>>>>>>
> "monospecific" can be
>>>>>> >
> found,
>>>>>> but
this
>>>>>> >
is
> ugly, as it is a hybrid
>>>>>> >
> combining a Greek and a
>>>>>> >
Latin
> word
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
element.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
Paul
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
-----
> Original
>>>>>>
Message
> -----
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> From:
> "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>> To:
>> "taxacom"
>>>>>> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>;
>> "John Grehan"
>>>>>> >
> <calabar.john at gmail.com>
>>>>>> >
Sent:
> Thursday, December 14, 2017
7:44 AM >
> Subject: Re:
>>>>>> [Taxacom]
> monotypic or >
monobasic >
>> >> I expect
that
>>>>>> these terms
> don't have > very
precise definitions and
> that >>
>>>>>> there
>
> may be a fair amount of variation
in exact usage. My
>>>>>> feeling
>> is that >>
"monobasic" isn't >
> used much any more.
>>>>>> It presumably
> means "with a single
> >> basis", i.e.
> "based on a > single
species".
>>>>>> Monotypic
> presumably means
"based > >> on a
> single type",
>>>>>> though
>>>>>>> "type"
> should, I think, be
interpreted in the >>
> general
>>>>>>> sense,
>>>>>> not as types
in
> the > nomenclatural
sense (i.e. type
> species
>>>>>>>> or
> type specimens), which is a
possible >
> source of
>>>>>> confusion. So,
a
> genus >> with
> just one species
> regarded as
>>>>>> valid
> would be monotypic,
even > if the
>>> single species had
>>>>>> synonyms
> (and > therefore more
than one type specimen
>>>
>>>>>> included).
All
> nominal genera
obviously > have only one type
>
>>>>>> species,
> whether >> or
> not the genus is
> monotypic! Monotypy
>>>>>> is the act of
> basing a > new
genus on >> a
> single species. I
>>>>>> have
>
> never seen or heard the term
"monobasy"! I also
>> >>
>>>>>> don't think
that
> these terms apply >
to species, i.e. basing a
>
>>>>>> new
> species on >> a single
specimen doesn't
> make the > species
mono-anything!
>>>>>>
>>
> Stephen
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>
--------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>
> On Thu, 14/12/17, John Grehan
<calabar.john at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
> Subject:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
[Taxacom]
> monotypic or monobasic
>>
>>>>>> To:
>>>>>> >
> "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>>> Received:
>>>>>> Thursday, 14
> December, 2017, >
6:07 PM >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
> Dear
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
> colleagues,
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>> I
> have
>>>>>> >
seen
> the
>>>>>> terms
> 'monotypic' and
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> >
> 'monobasic' applied to genera
with a >>
> single species. I
>>>>>> am curious
> to know if >>
there is a technically
> correct >>
>>>>>> choice for
the
> use of these terms for
>> such genera. If
>
>>>>>> anyone
may
> be able to >>
enlighten me as to the
> rules, if
>>>>>> any,
>>> governing how these terms
are >>
> properly used I would be
most >>
> grateful.
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
> John
>>>>>> Grehan
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>
_______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>
> Taxacom Mailing List
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
>>>>>>
>>
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>>>>
>>
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992
may be >>
> searched at:
>>>>>> http://taxacom.markmail.org >> >>
> Send Taxacom mailing
>
>>>>>> list
> submissions >> to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>> 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 30 Some >
> Years, 1987-2017.
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>
_______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>
> Taxacom Mailing List
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
>>>>>>
>>
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>>>>
>>
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992
may be >
> searched at:
>>>>>>
>>
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
> Send Taxacom
>>>>>>
mailing
>>>>>> >
list
> submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>> 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
>>>>>> 30
Some
> Years, 1987-2017.
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> >
---
>>>>>>
>>
> Deze e-mail
>>>>>> is
> gecontroleerd op
>>>>>> >
> virussen door
>>>>>> AVG.
>>>>>>
>>
> http://www.avg.com
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>
_______________________________________________
>>>>>> >
> Taxacom Mailing List
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
>>>>>> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>>>> >
The
> Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may
be > searched at:
>>>>>> http://taxacom.markmail.org > > Send
> Taxacom mailing list
>
>>>>>> submissions
to
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> 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 30
Some Years, 1987-2017.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>
_______________________________________________
>>>>>> >
> Taxacom Mailing List
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
>>>>>> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>>>> >
The
> Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may
be searched at:
>>>>>> http://taxacom.markmail.org > > Send
> Taxacom mailing list
>>>>>> submissions
to
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> 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 30 Some Years,
1987-2017.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message: 3
>>>>>> Date: Fri, 15
> Dec 2017 17:21:14 +0000
>>>>>> From: Kenneth
> Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
>>>>>> To: taxacom
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>>>>>> Subject:
> [Taxacom] Three kinds of bacteria
(Negibacteria the
>>>>>> oldest)
>>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>>>
> <CY4PR11MB1480650BB2E1588796035B5FC10B0 at CY4PR11MB1480.
>>>>>>
> namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Content-Type:
> text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>
> I am puzzled
why the prokaryotes are still
> classified as
>>>>>> Domains
Bacteria
> and Archaea. The most
fundamental divide
>>>>>> should
actually
> be between Negibacteria (which
possess the outer
>>>>>> negibacterial
> membrane) on the one hand, and the
Posibacteria
>>>>>> and
> Archaebacteria (which have lost
that
>>>>>> outer
> membrane). Cavalier-Smith
1998 proposed the name
> Unibacteria
>>>> for
>>>>>> Posibacteria
+
> Archaebacteria (since they have
only the one
>>>>>> membrane, not
> two).
>>>>>>
> Cavalier-Smith, 2006
("Rooting the tree of life by
>>>>>> transition
>>>>>> analyses")
shows
> that Negibacteria are the oldest
of the three
>>>>>> taxa,
>>>> and
>>>>>>
Archaebacteria
> are actually the youngest.
I am pretty sure that is
>>>> why
>>>>>> eubacterial
> trees are so screwed up, because
using
>>>>>>
Archaebacteria
> as the outgroup will misroot them
(Archaebacteria
>>>>>> are actually
an
> ingroup, not an outgroup).
>>>>>>
> Anyway, the names
Negibacteria and Posibacteria were
>
>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>> 30 years ago
> (Cavalier-Smith, 1987), and they
are excellent
>>>>>> names which
> subdivide the Eubacteria into two
large and
>>>>>> important
> taxa. So why aren't they
being used in databases like
>
>>>>>> Catalogue of
> Life and NCBI's Taxonomy Browser,
etc. ? The Three
>>>>>> Domain
> classification of life is outdated
and should have been
> discarded a long time ago.
>>>>>>
>
> -----------------Ken Kinman
Cavalier-Smith, 2006:
>>>>>>
> https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=
>>>>>>
>
PMC1586193_1745-6150-1-19-2&req=4 Evolutionary
> relationships
>>>>>> among the
four
> major kinds o | Open-i<
>>>>>> https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=
>>>>>>
>
PMC1586193_1745-6150-1-19-2&req=4>
>>>>>>
> openi.nlm.nih.gov
>>>>>> Evolutionary
> relationships among the four major
kinds of cell.
>>>>>> The
horizontal
> red arrow indicates the position
of the universal
>>>>>> root as
inferred
> from the first
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message: 4
>>>>>> Date: Fri, 15
> Dec 2017 12:23:42 -0500
>>>>>> From: John
> Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
>>>>>> To: taxacom
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>>>>>> Subject:
> [Taxacom] monotypic monobasic
>>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>>>
>
>
<CADN0ud1U14x+Kqubn9W1YKFyDrOCbptMt0NJE69_
>>>>>> VcyTZFFTjA at mail.gmail.com>
>>>>>> Content-Type:
> text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My thanks for
> the various responses. Much
appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Grehan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Subject:
Digest
> Footer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taxacom
Mailing
> List
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
>>>>>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>>>> The Taxacom
> Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at:
>>>>>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Send Taxacom
> mailing list submissions to
>>>>>> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> 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 30
Some Years,
>>>> 1987-2017.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> End of
Taxacom
> Digest, Vol 140, Issue 11
>>>>>>
>
****************************************
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>
_______________________________________________
>>>>> Taxacom Mailing
> List
>>>>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
>>>>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>>> The Taxacom
Archive
> back to 1992 may be searched at:
>>>>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Send Taxacom
mailing
> list submissions to
>>>>> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> 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 30
Some Years,
>>>> 1987-2017.
>>>>>
>
_______________________________________________
>>>>> Taxacom Mailing
> List
>>>>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
>>>>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>>> The Taxacom
Archive
> back to 1992 may be searched at:
>>>>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Send Taxacom
mailing
> list submissions to
>>>>> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> 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 30
Some Years,
>>>> 1987-2017.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Deze e-mail is
> gecontroleerd op virussen door
AVG.
>>>>> http://www.avg.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
_______________________________________________
>>>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
>>>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>> The Taxacom Archive
back
> to 1992 may be searched at:
>>>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>>>
>>>> Send Taxacom mailing
list
> submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
>>>> 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 30 Some
Years,
>> 1987-2017.
>>>>
>
_______________________________________________
>>>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
>>>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>> The Taxacom Archive
back
> to 1992 may be searched at:
>>>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>>>
>>>> Send Taxacom mailing
list
> submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
>>>> 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 30 Some
Years,
>> 1987-2017.
>>>>
>
_______________________________________________
>>>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
>>>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>> The Taxacom Archive
back
> to 1992 may be searched at:
>>>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>>>
>>>> Send Taxacom mailing
list
> submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
>>>> 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 30 Some
Years,
>> 1987-2017.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> The Taxacom Archive back to
1992
> may be searched at:
>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Send Taxacom mailing list
> submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> 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 30 Some Years,
1987-2017.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Javier Luque, PhD Candidate
> Department of Biological Sciences
> University of Alberta
> Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9, Canada
> E-mail: luque at ualberta.ca
>
> P Please consider the environment
> before printing this e-mail
>
_______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992
may be
> searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list
submissions
> to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> 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 30 Some Years,
1987-2017.
>
_______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992
may be
> searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list
submissions
> to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> 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 30 Some Years,
1987-2017.
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992
may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list
submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> 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 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list