[Taxacom] Retaining genus when its type species isn't
diagnosable
Francisco Welter-Schultes
fwelter at gwdg.de
Tue Dec 6 19:20:38 CST 2016
2016
Mike,
You do have a nominal type species in this case. Nomen dubium is a
misleading expression. The determination of the genus is not doubtful,
as long as it is doubtless that your type species belongs to your genus.
Simply said.
61.1.1: Taxon, not species. If the type species fits doubtlessly within
the currently accepted boundaries of that genus, everything is fine.
Many species do not have preserved name-bearing types. As long as there
is not need, no neotypes should be designated.
Francisco
Am 07.12.2016 um 01:45 schrieb Michael A. Ivie:
> 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.
>
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list