[Taxacom] Retaining genus when its type species isn't diagnosable

[Stephen Thorpe]

Hi Stuart,
There is no real problem that I can see with the type species of a genus being a nomen dubium. You could try, if you really wanted to, lodging an application with the ICZN for designation of a neotype for the type species, but if they don't see a real need, they might not bother.
Cheers,
Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 7/12/16, Stuart Longhorn <sjl197 at hotmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: [Taxacom] Retaining genus when its type species isn't diagnosable
 To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Wednesday, 7 December, 2016, 12:06 PM
 
 
 Can someone explain to me the best practice of how to treat
 a genus/species when the genus is identifiable but the
 species identity of the type species is not?
 
 
 e.g. Genus Aus Smith 1900
 
 With designated type species Aus xus Smith 1900
 
 and several other species added later.
 
 
 If the type species is not identifiable (as a 'species'),
 but the 'genus' perse is from that/associated description,
 is it ok for the genus to be retained as valid (including
 possibly adding other species to the genus), while its type
 species simply can become nomen dubium?
 
 
 From this
 
 67.1.2. The name of a type species remains unchanged even
 when it is a junior synonym or homonym, or a suppressed name
 (see Article 81.2.1<http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?nfv=true&article=81#2.1>).
 
 
 Thanks in advance
 
 stuart
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 
 Injecting Intellectual Liquidity for 29 years.