[Taxacom] Retaining genus when its type species isn't
diagnosable
Michael A. Ivie
mivie at montana.edu
Tue Dec 6 19:03:18 CST 2016
2016
Amusing example!
On the other point, using the Principle of Typification, if you have a
type, you know the species, what you don't know is what other
individuals belong to it. I am making the unsupported assumption that
Stuart does not have a type. If that is wrong, it goes to you as correct.
Mike
On 12/6/2016 5:57 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> 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.
> In your
> example, you know what the type is, in Stuart's
> example he says
> it is "nomen dubium." 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.
>
>
> 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." 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.
>
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> __________________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> .
>
--
__________________________________________________
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