[Taxacom] Retaining genus when its type species isn't
diagnosable
Michael A. Ivie
mivie at montana.edu
Tue Dec 6 18:45:09 CST 2016
2016
Francisico,
However, Under Art. 67.1. Name-bearing types. "The name-bearing type of
a nominal genus or subgenus is a nominal species called the 'type
species.'" Ipso facto, if you don't have a known type species, you
don't have a known genus. If there is any confusion at all, as
indicated by the term "nomen dubium," the definition of the the genus is
equally doubtful.
This follows from a very basic concept of the Code, the Principle of
Typification, as explained in Art. 61:
"61.1. Statement of the Principle of Typification. Each nominal taxon in
the family, genus or species groups has actually or potentially a
name-bearing type. The fixation of the name-bearing type of a nominal
taxon provides the objective standard of reference for the application
of the name it bears.
61.1.1. No matter how the boundaries of a taxonomic taxon may vary in
the opinion of zoologists the valid name of such a taxon is determined
[Art. 23.3] from the name-bearing type(s) considered to belong within
those boundaries."
No type? Unknown type species for a genus? No objective standard of
reference for the application of the name it bears. Period.
Mike
On 12/6/2016 5:39 PM, Francisco Welter-Schultes wrote:
> I also disagree, Mike, but maybe there is a misunderstanding as you
> just mentioned.
>
> There is not need to identify the type species down to species level,
> in this case genus level identification is sufficient.
>
> It is not possible to give a best practice advice without knowing more
> about the specific case. Much depends on the community. If it is
> likely that someone could designate a neotype in a way that distorts
> nomenclature, then it is useful to select a neotype. If there is
> silence and peace all around, and such a problematic action is not
> very likely, then selecting a neotype is not necessary. A neotype
> should not be designated as an end in itself (Art. 75.2), so it is
> only useful to select a neotype if there is a real need for it.
>
> Francisco
>
>
> Am 07.12.2016 um 01:20 schrieb Stephen Thorpe:
>> Hmm, now, Mike! You say"It is a fact that if you don't know what the
>> type species is, you cannot, by definition, know what the genus is".
>>
>> I disagree! You might know that the type species belongs within a
>> group of cryptic species (which are clearly congeneric), but not know
>> which of them it is (if the DNA cannot be sequenced, etc.)
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------
>> On Wed, 7/12/16, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Retaining genus when its type species
>> isn't diagnosable
>> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Received: Wednesday, 7 December, 2016, 1:17 PM
>> Francisco,
>> I agree that you can do what
>> you say, as many practices do not follow
>> the Code, and in fact work pretty well
>> anyway. BUT, Stuart asked about
>> "best practice." It is a fact that
>> if you don't know what the type
>> species
>> is, you cannot, by definition, know what the genus is.
>> Anyone
>> could come along and perfectly
>> validly (if unadvisedly) designate pretty
>> much anything as the Neotype, and render all
>> those other species
>> incorrectly placed.
>> Arts. 75.3.5 and 75.3.6 give great latitude to
>> deviate from the original concept.
>> 75.3.5. evidence that the
>> neotype is consistent with what is known of
>> the former name-bearing type from the original
>> description and from
>> other sources;
>> *however, a neotype may be based on a different sex or
>> life stage, if necessary or desirable to secure
>> stability of nomenclature;**
>> *
>> 75.3.6. evidence that the neotype came as
>> *nearly as practicable* from
>> the original
>> type locality [Art. 76.1] and, where relevant, from the
>> same geological horizon or host species as the
>> original name-bearing
>> type (see also
>> Article 76.3 and Recommendation 76A.1);
>> Best practice requires the stabilization of a
>> Neotype.
>> Mike
>> On 12/6/2016
>> 5:09 PM, Francisco Welter-Schultes wrote:
>> > You can certainly continue adding species
>> to that genus.
>> >
>> > I
>> understand that the type species cannot be firmly associated
>> with
>> > any existing known species, but
>> it certainly belongs to a group of
>> >
>> species currently regarded to represent that genus. As long
>> as nothing
>> > happens the type species
>> can remain a doubtful name within this genus.
>> >
>> > The problem arises
>> once someone likes to split up the genus, and it is
>> > impossible to tell to which subgroup the
>> doubtful type species might
>> > belong. In
>> this case some action needs to be taken.
>> >
>> > Francisco
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Am 07.12.2016 um 00:24 schrieb 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.
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> > 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.
>> --
>> __________________________________________________
>> Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D.,
>> F.R.E.S.
>> NOTE: two
>> addresses with different Zip Codes depending on carriers
>> US Post Office Address:
>> Montana Entomology Collection
>> Marsh Labs, Room 50
>> PO Box
>> 173145
>> Montana State University
>> Bozeman, MT 59717
>> USA
>> UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
>> Montana Entomology Collection
>> Marsh Labs, Room 50
>> 1911 West
>> Lincoln Street
>> Montana State University
>> Bozeman, MT 59718
>> USA
>> (406)
>> 994-4610 (voice)
>> (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
>> mivie at montana.edu
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
--
__________________________________________________
Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
NOTE: two addresses with different Zip Codes depending on carriers
US Post Office Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
PO Box 173145
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA
UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59718
USA
(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list