Preparing data for cladistic analysis

Gregor Hagedorn G.Hagedorn at BBA.DE
Thu Apr 22 19:50:49 CEST 1999

>> It would be better to use 'typical' species (i.e. most typical of 
>> the genus) rather than 'type' species (a nomenclatural concept). 
>> It would be better
> This idea may lead to wrong. "A genus is defined by the type species", 
> and one species belongs to one genus whether it looks like the type 
> species. The only species that can never been put out of the genus is 
> the type species. Therefore the most 'typical' species in a genus is 
> the 'type' species. It is more than a nomenclatural concept.

You are right, of course, but from a practical standpoint I would 
endorse Mike's suggestion insofar, that you should consider both, the 
types and an "average", perhaps well studied, species of each genus (if 
they differ). The issue you brought up is the development of a stable 
character definition. Ideally, this definition should be able to cover 
all species of the family as soon as you find time to deal with them. 
Those "average/mainstream" species of genera that are different from the 
type, may well end in different or even new genera.


Gregor Hagedorn
Inst. f. Mikrobiologie, BBA     Net: G.Hagedorn at
Koenigin-Luise-Str. 19          Tel: +49-30-8304-2220 or -2221
14195 Berlin, Germany           Fax: +49-30-8304-2203

More information about the delta-l mailing list