>>>>well done O.H. if that doesn't get jeff out of the wordsmith closet, i don't know if he'll ever emerge.

>>>>

>>>>curious, isn't it "species novum" the singular form?

>>>>

>>>>matt

>>

>>Hi Matt!

>>

>>Well, as WW pointed out, my example wasn't the best in the world. It really should have been "comb. nov." for new combination since it wasn't a new species, but just a subspecies reassigned to a previously existing species within the same genus.

>>To illustrate "sp. nov.", I should have used Drymarchon caudomaculatus (sp. nov.), because that was, in fact, a new species within that genus.

>>

>>The only point that I'm not clear on is if you assign what was previously a subspecific naming to species status (a status elevation, such as in D. couperi. Is that then considered a new species, since it was not a species before? I understand that couperi is probably not a good example since it was used for the very same animal as a species name under Coluber couperi in a now obsolete taxon. But had that name never been previously assigned as a species, but had been used as a subspecies name, would it then be considered a new species? I don't think I've ever seen it done...just wondering.

>>-----

>>We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. Ralph Waldo Emerson
-----
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. Ralph Waldo Emerson

[ Show Entire Thread ]