Dear David,

I think that it would be included because the subgenus has no nomenclatural validity so far as homology goes.  Thus if an author described genus AAA and included 10 species in the nominate subgenus (AAA) but at the same time described a further 10 species in genus AAA subgenus BBB, they all would be species originally included in genus AAA.  At least that would be my initial inclination.

However, I would think that someone surely has argues this point in the past?


Sincerely,

John K. Tucker
Illinois Natural History Survey
-----Original message-----
From: David Campbell [log in to unmask]
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:05:26 -0500
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Taxonomic point

 I'm trying to work out type species for genera proposed in the early 1800's
and wanted to check the opinion of others about what constitutes originally
included species.  I think that a species assigned to a subgenus other than
the nominal subgenus would not be available.  This means that the ICZN will
have to act to conserve current usage of Obliquaria.  Any thoughts?

  --
> Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections
> University of Alabama
> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------