Jump to content

Talk:Monotypic taxon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tarsius

[edit]

Tarsius has been split into a total of three genera, so it is no longer monotypic in Tarsiidae. Time to find another example. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wider monotypy

[edit]

Examples or discussion of how wide-ranging monotypy may be might be interesting. Anyone up for creating Category:Monospeciose families or Category:Monofamilial orders as starting points? --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 16:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to (not systemically) add monotypic plants, hoping to move a cart a bit toward the concise list of monotypic genera:
However User:Plantdrew reverted my edit saying "more examples are not needed". Is it User:Plantdrew opinion or is there any kind of rule, when it is enough? "Animals" have way more examples, for example=) Gregory108 (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gregory108:, I suppose a few more plant examples wouldn't hurt, but they really ought to be sourced with a reference that says they are monotypic (alternatively, the number of animal examples could be reduced to bring them in line with the number of plant examples). Category:Monotypic plant taxa includes 47 orders, 218 families, and 3488 genera (the orders and families may include multiple species, but only have one family/genus respectively). There are ~12,000 plant genera, so about 1/4 are monotypic. Plantdrew (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks! I had not found this category page before. I will add those examples to the category as this list is what I was hoping to assemble/find. I do not dig as deep as reading peer-reviewed journal articles, I stop at POWO/WFO/Kew Gardens to verify that genus is indeed monotypic. Gregory108 (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

question

[edit]

Hello, I have a question about the definition of Monospecific genus, Is it including also a type which has one living species and one extinct species, for example:

Genus Macrotis
Greater bilby, M. lagotis
Lesser bilby, † M. leucura

In this case extinct Lesser Bilby and remains to Greater Bilby. The question is whether the Greater Bilby deemed to Monospecific genus. Thanks in advance.

It is advisable to inform me here מנחם.אל (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say about zoology, but in botany, monotypic and monospecific are always relative to a particular taxonomic opinion. So if a living species and an extinct species are included in the genus, then the genus is not monotypic. If a particular taxonomist thinks that the genus should be divided into two, with one species per genus, then both are monotypic according to that person. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sminthopsis84, thanks. (Even in - ZSL did not know ...) In fact this is what I argued in the debate with another user.

But this person, asked: In Lycaon (genus) There are two species: one species extinct during the Pleistocene (Lycaon sekowei) and one species that lives today (African wild dog).

Yet African wild dog called "Monotypic taxon".

So I thought maybe sex extinct thousands of years ago is not like an extinct species in modern times. What do you think? מנחם.אל (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a person who is trying to be accurate would say that Lycaon is monotypic. They would say that there is only one living species. (Often what happens is that the extinct species are considered to be a different genus, as with Ginkgo and Ginkgoites.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sminthopsis84, thank you (thanks to you I won the debate ...). I'll be back here if I have more questions. By the way I like Dunnarts :) . מנחם.אל (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Procedural close – merge and redirection has already taken place per WP:SNOW (see final post in this discussion).  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  07:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity can be combined. The latter is just a single case of the former. Both articles are short. It also is hard to link to both in an article without it seeming clunky. Nessie (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we do not need two articles. I think the destination of the merge should be monotypic taxon. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since Monotypic taxon is general & Monospecificity is specific, I believe the latter should be an instance / example in the former's article. Maybe make it its own section because it is probably the most common instance, the have Monospecificity be a redirect to Monotypic taxon#Monospecificity. Peaceray (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, merge to Monotypic taxon with the information from Monospecificity used in the description. Loopy30 (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Monotypic taxon, although frankly I'm not sure there's anything at Monospecificity that is worth retaining in a merge. The fundamental premise of that article is mistaken. Zoologists do not reserve the term "monospecific" for genera with a single species while using "monotypic" for higher taxa with a single subordinate taxon. In the glossary of the ICZN (available online here), monotypy is defined as "the situation arising when an author establishes a nominal genus or subgenus for what he or she considers to be a single taxonomic species and denotes that species by an available name (the nominal species so named is the type-species by monotypy". Granted, the ICZN usage is a narrower sense of the term monotypic than addressed here (it's solely about cases where the type species of a genus doesn't need to be explicitly specified), but "monospecific" is not even mentioned in the ICZN, and their "monotypic" is explicitly about genera.
The reality is, both botanists and zoologists use "monotypic" to include: genera with one species, families with one genus (but containing multiple species), and families with one genus (containing a single species). It's not necessarily precise, so monospecific and monogeneric can be used to clarify when families are involved. On Wikipedia, we have Category:Monogeneric families, but all other categories for ranks use "monotypic" (e.g. Category:Monotypic genera, Category:Monotypic classes). Plantdrew (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should certainly combine them, per the above, but it seems to me that all we need to do is to make Monospecificity a redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chiswick Chap: a redirect is all that is needed, at least to begin with; there's little at Monospecificity that needs to be merged in. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. Both of these are dictionary definitions, and really probably shouldn't expand much further. Arbitrary, superfluous, and/or redundant examples should be discouraged: we currently have two examples of monotypic/monospecific families (Cephalotaceae and Panuridae), and two examples of monospecific genera. We needn't cater to plants and animals in every case, it's just silly. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Concur with Plantdrew and Peter coxhead. Redirect Monospecificity to this article.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  09:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. From the monospecificity page, I do like the bit explaining formerly monospecific species, and I think the discussion earlier on this page about extinct species would be beneficial to explain the concept in greater detail than just on the talk page. Reade (talk) 10:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. Monospecific is merely a subset of monotypic, as is monogeneric (which redirects to monotypic). Monospecificity is poorly referenced anyway, and does not contain enough to justify a separate page.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging Monospecific taxon to Monospecificity. I'm not big on biology, but I would presume monospecificity is a more general term than monospecific taxon. Someone made a point about monospecific taxon having more content, but this isn't a proposal to remove content and we can solve any problems with the creation of a redirect which is integral in the process of merging any way. This is probably a really weak analogy, but I feel like calling it Monospecific taxon is sort of like calling the Chickenpox article Chickenpoxed animal; We're discussing a condition, not a physical entity or a specific individual grouping beyond just monospecificity. Really wish I could think of a closer example right now, but hopefully that makes sense. Repku (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, 'monotypic taxon' is the article title the rest of us are talking about, and it's indeed far more general than 'monospecific' is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SNOW and the arguments given, the page has been merged leaving a redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tuatara and coelacanth should be here

[edit]

I believe the above should be here. NadVolum (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC) The nautilus and horseshoe crabs are possibly also candidates thogh I think there's a few different types of horseshow crabs. And I don't think humans belong, they're too close to the apes. NadVolum (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are two living coelocanth species, and three tuatara species have been described. Plantdrew (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the Science reference desk they also mention Parakaryon myojinensis. NadVolum (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monotypic_taxon&oldid=1248958010"