Content-type: |
text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 24 Dec 2003 16:58:13 +1300 |
In-Reply-To: |
<003a01c3c9c2$32c53810$8951b141@Laptop1> |
MIME-version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>Some treat C. anabathrum burryae as a separate species (e.g. Conus burryae
>Clench, 1942). I believe this is not allowed since the taxon was originally
>proposed as a subspecies. For names originally proposed as subspecies, the
>International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature needs to be petitioned
>to elevate the taxon in rank to a species.
Since when?
If a "subspecies" is really distinct and does not intergrade with the
species, then it really belongs at specific rank. I don't believe
that it needs any petition, as the name is valid and available.
--
Andrew Grebneff
Dunedin, New Zealand
64 (3) 473-8863
<[log in to unmask]>
Fossil preparator
Seashell, Macintosh & VW/Toyota van nut
________________________________
I want your sinistral gastropods!
________________________________
Opinions in this e-mail are my own, not those of my institution
_______________________________________________
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is top posting frowned upon?
|
|
|