I agree with Kristian's and Chris' opinions on subgenera. My personal
take on the more traditional use of subgenera stems from the desire to
reflect grade groups, ancestor-descendant relationships, levels of
divergence, etc., back when these were (and unfortunately still are)
fashionable. The problem has been compounded by the notion that some
characters deserve greater recognition than others. As we're seeing,
unless we're very clear about our intentions, both nomenclaturally and
systematically, there's the chance to introduce more confusion for many,
as noted by Chris. There may be times that subgenera are needed, but this
can only be determined when the cladograms are available or monophyly is
known. If formal classifications are intended to reflect what we observe,
then taxonomic ranks serve to denote monophyletic groups, not vice versa.
I have no problem with the use of subgenus - but polychaete systematists
must make clear their intent to use such a rank with monophyly in mind.
Kirk
------------------------------------------
Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
Associate Curator of Polychaetes
Research & Collections Branch
Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History
900 Exposition Blvd
Los Angeles CA 90007
Phone: 213-763-3233
FAX: 213-746-2999
e-mail: fitzhugh at bcf.usc.edu
------------------------------------------
-- ANNELIDA LIST
Discuss = <annelida at net.bio.net> = talk to all members
Server = <biosci-server at net.bio.net> = un/subscribes
Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/
Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html
--
