some time ago we faced a similar question regarding a new species
which was similar to Fabricinuda, but not sharing all generic traits.
Then, we had to decide wether to name a monotypic genus or to redefine
the existing one and opted for the second choice. This is to say that
I'm not exactly a splitter. However, in your case I consider more
appropiate to define a new genus, even if monotypic. The much needed
revision of the Fabriciinae genera might re-place the taxon oregonica
or more probably provide new species to be assigned to your genus.
"J. Kirk Fitzhugh" <kfitzhugh from nhm.org> escribió:
>> I wanted to ask for opinions on a basic nomenclatural/systematics
> decision that I have to make. I'm finishing descriptions of recently
> collected individuals of /Fabricia oregonica/ Banse, 1956. The
> original material is in extremely poor condition, which precluded me
> from earlier adding to Banse's description. Plus, the only well
> described species in /Fabricia/ up to this point is /F. stellaris/.
> With these new specimens belonging to /F. oregonica/, I've looked at
> phylogenetic relationships, and /F. oregonica/ is not a sister taxon
> to /F. stellaris/.
>> So, I have two choices. (1) Place /F. oregonica/ in a yet another
> new, monotypic genus. (2) Leave the species in /Fabricia/, and just
> acknowledge that the genus can't be unambiguously defined.
>> Any thoughts? Opinions?
> J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
> Curator of Polychaetes
> Invertebrate Zoology Section
> Research & Collections Branch
> Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
> 900 Exposition Blvd
> Los Angeles CA 90007
> Phone: 213-763-3233
> FAX: 213-746-2999
> e-mail: kfitzhug from nhm.org>http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/polychaetous-annelids> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~