[Taxacom] Describing genera without molecular phyolgies

[Lynn Raw]

Richard, I did qualify my statement with the further reference to Mayr that a genus is a single species or monophyletic group which is separated from other taxa by a decided (morphological) gap which is in inverse ratio to the size of the taxon. What I meant by arbitrary was the decision as to where that gap lies. Depending on where you decide to make the division everything within the genus can be monophyletic, even though there are smaller monophyletic groups within it. The smallest of these might be a single species, subspecies or population but we usually choose natural groups with more distinctive differences to set the boundaries.

> On 24 May 2020, at 00:51, Richard Zander via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> 
> Lynn Raw wrote that a genus is purely an arbitrary concept. No it isn't, that's a sad meme. Those groups of species we intuitively identify in nature are actually clusters of descendants radiating away from some generalized progenitor. I've tested this purely empirical concept of genus, and it works as an explanation. See my recent stuff on ResearchGate.
>