[Taxacom] Retaining genus when its type species isn't
diagnosable
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue Dec 6 18:57:34 CST 2016
2016
Mike,
It is still technically a nomen dubium if you cannot associate the name with a unique recognised species. After all, where would you draw the line? I know it is an animal, but I don't know what kind of animal. I know it belongs to the Aus bus species complex, but I don't know which species. It is all the same.
BTW, somewhat amusingly, if anyone is inclined to take the Code too literally, how about this then?
1.3. Exclusions. Excluded from the provisions of the Code are names proposed
1.3.1. for hypothetical concepts;
Since species are hypothetical concepts (i.e. species are hypotheses to be tested), the Code explicitly excludes names for all species of animals!
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: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Wednesday, 7 December, 2016, 1:29 PM
Stephen, I think we are talking at cross purposes.Â
In your
example, you know what the type is, in Stuart's
example he saysÂ
it is "nomen dubium."Â I take this to be
"...a
scientific name that is of unknown or doubtful
application."
This is different. In your example, you have a type,
and you know
what it is, but you cannot associate other specimens
with it
exactly. In his, he simply does not know that the
species name
applies to at all. If this is not what Stuart meant,
then you are
right.Â
Mike
On 12/6/2016
5:20 PM, Stephen Thorpe
wrote:
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."Â It is a fact that
if you don't know what the type
species
is, you cannot, by definition, know what the genus is.Â
Anyone
could come along and perfectly
validly (if unadvisedly) designate pretty
much anything as the Neotype, and render all
those other species
incorrectly placed.Â
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:
>>
>>Â Â Â Subject: [Taxacom]
Retaining genus when its type species isn't
>> diagnosable
>>Â Â Â To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>>Â Â Â Received: Wednesday, 7
December, 2016, 12:06 PM
>>Â Â
   Can someone explain to me the best practice of
how to treat
>>Â Â Â a
genus/species when the genus is identifiable but the
>>Â Â Â species identity of the
type species is not?
>>Â Â
   e.g. Genus Aus Smith 1900
>>Â Â Â Â With designated type
species Aus xus Smith 1900
>>Â
   and several other species added later.
>>Â Â Â Â Â If the type species
is not identifiable (as a 'species'),
>>Â Â Â but the 'genus'
perse is from that/associated description,
>>Â Â Â is it ok for the genus to
be retained as valid (including
>>Â Â Â possibly adding other
species to the genus), while its type
>>Â Â Â species simply can become
nomen dubium?
>>Â Â
   From this
>>Â
   67.1.2. The name of a type species remains
unchanged even
>>Â Â Â when it
is a junior synonym or homonym, or a suppressed name
>>Â Â Â (see Article
>> 81.2.1<http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?nfv=true&article�#2.1>).
>>Â Â Â Â Â Thanks in
advance
>>Â Â Â Â stuart
>>Â Â Â _______________________________________________
>>Â Â Â Taxacom Mailing List
>>Â Â Â Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>Â Â Â http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>Â Â Â The Taxacom Archive back
to 1992 may be searched at:
>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>Â Â Â Â Injecting Intellectual
Liquidity for 29 years.
>>Â Â Â _______________________________________________
>> 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.
.
--
__________________________________________________
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