Category talk:Monotypic animal genera

Initially considered categorizing at a finer resolution, such as "Monotypic insect genera", etc.

However, the rarity, as far as I can tell, of such genera doesn't seem to justify a finer resolution.

RickJP (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * After cleaning up the category there are currently 17 pages not categorized in any of the 5 current sub-categories (amphibian, bird, fish, mammal, and reptile). There are 9 arthropods, 3 fossil vetulicolians, 2 ctenophores, 1 mollusk, 1 cnidarian, and 1 annelid.  I disagree that invertebrate monotypic genera are rare, but rather think they are not as well studied or known as the vertebrate monotypic genera.  To further categorize we could just do the arthropods, or all invertebrates and nest the arthropods inside. Reade (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Genera?
Many of the items categorise in this and sub categories are species rather then genera. Perhaps category renaming is worth some thought. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)