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

[Stephen Thorpe]

I think that Mike is making a distinction between: 

(1) There is a type specimen for the type species, but it cannot be identified (fully); and

(2) There is no type specimen for the type species.

I don't really see any relevant difference, however. If (1), then the type species is a nomen dubium. If (2), then the type species may be a nomen dubium, but may instead be identifiable (fully) from the original description and/or illustrations. If the type species is a nomen dubium, then there may still be a circumscription in use of the genus which need not be affected. So, for a simplified hypothetical example, if I describe new genus G for all 5 legged mammals, and describe two species, one of which (Gus aus) is designated type, but my description of it is rubbish and the type is lost or otherwise unidentifiable to species, then we can still use G as a genus name for all species of 5 legged mammals. Problems could arise (and be solved by appropriate means), but in their absence there is no problem.

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, 2:16 PM
 
 Doug,
 
 No type specimen for SPECIES? No problem if
 there is no confusion.  Homo 
 is the poster
 child for this. Therefore your statement "there are
 lots 
 of species with no type specimen"
 is obviously OK, and the Code 
 recognizes
 this in the restrictions on Neotype designation.
 
 But, I also said "Unknown
 type species?"  This changes the equation.  
 This question is specifically for a case where
 the identity of the type 
 species IS in
 question, I assume because of lack of a type.  In this 
 case, your examples do not apply under
 "Best Practice."
 
 The many genera with no correctly designated
 type species are also not 
 examples of Best
 Practice.  Yes,  they are out there, but it is not what
 
 you can call "correct."
 
 You say "the Code does
 not *require* stabilization through typification 
 unless there is confusion." This was never
 in question, we are talking 
 about an
 example where there IS confusion, which is what
 "dubium" means.
 
 Mike
 
 
 On 12/6/2016 6:06 PM, Doug Yanega wrote:
 > On 12/6/16 4:45 PM, Michael A. Ivie
 wrote:
 >> No type? Unknown type
 species for a genus? No objective standard of 
 >> reference for the application of the
 name it bears.  Period.
 > Actually,
 there are lots of species with no type specimen, and many
 
 > genera with no type species (dubious
 or otherwise). Percentage-wise, 
 > both
 occurrences are perhaps rare, but the absolute numbers are
 
 > significant. BEST PRACTICE is to
 follow the Code, and the Code does 
 > not
 *require* stabilization through typification unless there is
 
 > confusion. This is at the core of a
 lot of ongoing controversy, but I 
 > and
 perhaps most Commissioners seem to be okay with the "If
 it ain't 
 > broke, don't fix
 it" approach here.
 >
 > If there is a genuine risk of a genus name
 being misapplied unless a 
 > type species
 is fixed, then yes, do it. Otherwise, don't worry.
 >
 > Peace,
 >
 
 -- 
 __________________________________________________
 
 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.