[Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Dec 18 13:15:45 CST 2017
2017
None of this has any bearing on the more informal usage of the term "monotypic" for genera with only a single species. Words mean whatever people use them to mean. It is interesting that the adjectival form "monotypic" is rarely used in the nomenclatural context, where the noun "monotypy" is used. It would sound odd to say that a genus which now has hundreds of species is monotypic, but perhaps strictly speaking correct if it was originally based on a single species!
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 19/12/17, Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
To: "Javier Luque" <javierluquec at gmail.com>, "Tony Rees" <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
Cc: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
Received: Tuesday, 19 December, 2017, 6:48 AM
>>> Use of 'monotypy' *sensu* the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
We should not forget that the Code
Glossary is part of the legislative text.
ICZN GLOSSARY:
monotypy, n.
The situation arising (1) when an
author establishes a nominal genus or subgenus for what he
or she considers to be a single taxonomic species and
denotes that species by an available name (the nominal
species so named is the type-species by monotypy) [Art.
68.3]; or (2) when an author bases a nominal species-group
taxon on a single specimen but does not explicitly designate
it as holotype (holotype by monotypy; see Article 73.1.2).
subsequent monotypy
The situation arising when a nominal
genus or subgenus was established before 1931 without any
included nominal species, and when only a single taxonomic
species denoted by an available name was first subsequently
referred to it [Art. 69.3].
/Thomas Pape
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Pape, Natural History Museum of
Denmark
President of ICZN
-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
On Behalf Of Javier Luque
Sent: 18. december 2017 18:34
To: Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>;
Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or
monobasic
Use of 'monotypy' *sensu* the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
Chapter 15: Types in the genus group.
"Art. 68.3: Type species by monotypy.
When an author establishes a new nominal genus-group taxon
for a single taxonomic species and denotes that species by
an available name, the nominal species so named is the type
species. Fixation by this means is deemed to be fixation by
monotypy, regardless of any cited synonyms, subspecies, or
unavailable names, and regardless of whether the author
considered the nominal genus-group taxon to contain other
species which he or she did not cite by name, and regardless
of nominal species-group taxa doubtfully included or
identified.
68.3.1. If a new genus is divided into
subgenera at the time its name is established, and if the
nominotypical subgenus contains only a single species, that
nominal species is deemed to be the type by monotypy of the
new nominal genus."
Cheers,
Javier
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Tony
Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> In the message below I tried
internationalizing the links but they do
> not seem to work so well - the
ones I actually used are here:
>
> https://books.google.com.au/books?redir_esc=y&id=Qky7_6-
>
UcQQC&q=monobasic#v=snippet&q=monotypic&fúlse
> https://books.google.com.au/books?redir_esc=y&id=Qky7_6-
>
UcQQC&q=monotypic#v=snippet&q=monotypic&fúlse
>
> - Tony
>
> Tony Rees, New South Wales,
Australia
> https://about.me/TonyRees
>
> On 18 December 2017 at 16:59, Tony
Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > Definitions from Terms Used
in Bionomenclature: The Naming of
> > Organisms and Plant
Communities ...edited by D. L. Hawksworth
> > here:
> > https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=Qky7_6-
> >
UcQQC&q=monobasic#v=snippet&q=monobasic&fúlse
> > https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=Qky7_6-
> >
UcQQC&q=monotypic#v=snippet&q=monotypic&fúlse
> >
> > Regards - Tony
> >
> > Tony Rees, New South Wales,
Australia https://about.me/TonyRees
> >
> > On 18 December 2017 at 00:32,
Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
wrote:
> >
> >> Notice that this
definition of "monotypic" is unequivocally
> nomenclatural
> >> (appropriately so, I
suppose, given its source):Â "monotypic genus.
> >> A
> genus
> >> for which a single
binomial is validly published (Art. 38.6) (see
> >> also unispecific)".Â
The definition was provided in the ICNafp only
> >> for the purposes of
Article 38.5-6 allowing simultaneous
> >> publication of a genus
> and
> >> a species description
(the description being the same).
> >>
> >> This nomenclatural
definition is contrary to the very common and
> standard
> >> usage in floras and other
botanical works along the lines of
> >> "Ginkgo is
> a
> >> monotypic genus, with
only a single extant species". This common
> >> and standard usage is
"taxonomic", meaning there is only a single
> >> currently
"recognized/accepted" species in the genus. Even
leaving
> >> aside the
> issue
> >> of "monotypy" and extinct
taxa, Ginkgo (and other prominent
> >> examples of monotypic
genera, like Welwitschia) are not monotypic
> >> by the ICNafp
definition.
> >>
> >> It's hard to think of a
situation (outside the Code itself or a
> >> nomenclatural analysis of
very rare cases) in which one would want
> >> or
> need
> >> to use "monotypic" as
defined narrowly and nomenclaturally to mean
> >> a
> genus
> >> for which only a single
species had ever been validly published.
> >>
> >> And note that the Code
seemingly defines "unispecific" by not
> >> defining
> it
> >> but providing a
definition that in theory should replace and mean
> something
> >> different than the very
narrow nomenclatural definition of "monotypic":
> >> "unispecific. [Not
defined] – with a single species." The "[Not
> defined]"
> >> is explained: "The
particular usage of a few other words, not
> >> defined in the Code, is
also indicated; these are italicized in the
> >> list below and
> are
> >> accompanied by editorial
explanation of their use."
> >>
> >> Googling "monotypic" one
finds contrary definitions, a few with the
> >> new narrow nomenclatural
definition, but others, like this one a
> >> Merriam-Webster,
reflection the more common usage:Â "including a
> >> single representative
—used especially of a genus with only one species".
> >>
> >> I thought I'd hit the
jackpot with a Wikipedia disambiguation page
> >> for "Monotype", but:
> >>
> >> A monotype is a print
made by drawing or painting on a smooth,
> >> non-absorbent surface.
> >>Â Â Â
 Monotype may also refer to:
> >>Â Â Â
     Monotypic taxon, a
taxonomic group containing only
> >> one immediately
subordinate taxon
> >>Â Â Â
     Monotype Corporation, a
typesetting and typeface
> >> design company
> >>Â Â Â
     Monotype System - the
typesetting machine made by
> >> the Monotype Corporation
> >>
> >> The joke's on us...Â
;-)
> >>
> >> -----Original
Message-----
> >> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
On Behalf
> >> Of Mary Barkworth
> >> Sent: Saturday, December
16, 2017 6:15 AM
> >> To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
monotypic or monobasic
> >>
> >> Hurray! Thank you Paul.
It was probably suggested to me by someone
> >> as it is not the sort of
thing I would have gone out on a limb over.
> >>
> >> -----Original
Message-----
> >> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
On Behalf
> >> Of Paul van Rijckevorsel
> >> Sent: Saturday, December
16, 2017 2:37 AM
> >> To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
monotypic or monobasic
> >>
> >> Well, "unispecific" is
endorsed by the ICNafp, see the Glossary:
> >>Â http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=glo
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message
-----
> >> From: "Mary Barkworth"
<Mary.Barkworth at usu.edu>
> >> To: "Les Watling" <watling at hawaii.edu>;
> >> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> Sent: Friday, December
15, 2017 10:57 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
monotypic or monobasic
> >>
> >>
> >> > and then there is
unispecific. No endorsement for it but we used
> >> > it in the FNA grass
volumes in response to comments that
> >> > monotypic was not
always appreopriate.
> >> >
> >> >
________________________________
> >> > From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
on behalf of
> >> > Les Watling <watling at hawaii.edu>
> >> > Sent: Friday,
December 15, 2017 2:34:51 PM
> >> > To: Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> > Subject: [Taxacom]
monotypic or monobasic
> >> >
> >> > Blackwelder, (1967),
p. 517:
> >> >
> >> > "If a new genus is
proposed for a single species, that species is
> >> > automatically the
genotype, and the genus is said to be *monobasic*.
> >> > (The term
*monotypic* is sometimes used in this sense, buit it is
> >> > inappropriate and
should be avoided.)"
> >> >
> >> > News to me.....
should have paid closer attention in class!
> >> >
> >> > Les
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Les Watling
> >> > Professor, Dept. of
Biology
> >> > 216 Edmondson Hall
> >> > University of Hawaii
at Manoa
> >> > Honolulu, HI 96822
> >> > Ph. 808-956-8621
> >> > Cell: 808-772-9563
> >> > e-mail: watling at hawaii.edu
> >> >
> >> > Tweets from
@WernerTwertzog:
> >> >
> >> > I do not own a
selfie stick because the self does not exist.
> >> >
> >> > When a tree falls in
a forest, it does, of course, make a sound,
> >> > because, you have to
realize, its not all about you.
> >> >
> >> >Â Â Â
       Â
       Â
       Â
   --
> >> > William Pannapacker
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017
at 8:00 AM,
> >> > <taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Daily News from
the Taxacom Mailing List
> >> >>
> >> >> When responding
to a message, please do not copy the entire
> >> >> digest into your
reply.
> >> >>
____________________________________
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Today's Topics:
> >> >>
> >> >>Â Â 1.
Re: monotypic or monobasic (Lynn Raw)
> >> >>Â Â 2.
Re: monotypic or monobasic (Stephen Thorpe)
> >> >>Â Â 3.
Three kinds of bacteria (Negibacteria the oldest) (Kenneth
> >> Kinman)
> >> >>Â Â 4.
monotypic monobasic (John Grehan)
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >> >> -
> >> >>
> >> >> Message: 1
> >> >> Date: Thu, 14
Dec 2017 20:18:15 +0100
> >> >> From: Lynn Raw
<lynn at afriherp.org>
> >> >> To: Stephen
Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> >> >> Cc: taxacom
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> >> Subject: Re:
[Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
> >> >> Message-ID:
<FF14C7A8-C240-4BDD-9F72-95BDFF711725 at afriherp.org>
> >> >> Content-Type:
text/plain;Â Â Â charset=us-ascii
> >> >>
> >> >> From what I
understand, monobasic is a term used in chemistry
> >> >> while monotypic
is a term used in taxonomy and nomenclature.
> >> >> Definitions of
both terms are available in good dictionaries or even on the
web.
> >> >>
> >> >> Lynn Raw
> >> >>
> >> >> Sent from my
iPad
> >> >>
> >> >> > On 14 Dec
2017, at 09:49, Stephen Thorpe
> >> >> > <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Monotypy is
a nomenclatural term (ICZN) in relation to the
> >> >> > fixation of
a
> >> >> type species of
a new genus, but the grammatical variant
> >> >> monotypic has
broader meaning. It is perhaps ugly to have
> >> >> variants of the
same term with different meanings (one broader than the
other)!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Stephen
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
--------------------------------------------
> >> >> > On Thu,
14/12/17, Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at freeler.nl>
> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Subject:
Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
> >> >> > To:
"taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> >> > Received:
Thursday, 14 December, 2017, 9:32 PM
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The correct
term should be
> >> >> >
"unispecific".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The term
"monotypic" sounds
> >> >> >
nomenclatural, and
> >> >> > indeed has
been defined
> >> >> > as a
nomenclatural term
> >> >> > in the
ICNafp. By
> >> >> > contrast,
"unispecific" represents a taxonomic concept
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sometimes
"monospecific" can be found, but this is ugly, as it
> >> >> > is a hybrid
combining a Greek and a Latin word element.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Paul
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -----
Original Message -----
> >> >> >
> >> >> > From:
"Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> >> >> > To:
"taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>;
"John Grehan"
> >> >> > <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >> >> > Sent:
Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:44 AM
> >> >> > Subject:
Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I
expect that these terms don't have
> >> >> > very
precise definitions and that
> >> >> >> there
> >> >> > may be a
fair amount of variation in exact usage. My feeling
> >> >> > is that
> >> >> >>
"monobasic" isn't
> >> >> > used much
any more. It presumably means "with a single
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> basis",
i.e. "based on a
> >> >> > single
species". Monotypic presumably means "based
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> on a
single type", though
> >> >> > "type"
should, I think, be interpreted in the
> >> >> >> general
sense, not as types in the
> >> >> >
nomenclatural sense (i.e. type species
> >> >> >> or type
specimens), which is a possible
> >> >> > source of
confusion. So, a genus
> >> >> >> with
> >> >> > just one
species regarded as valid would be monotypic, even if
> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> single
species had synonyms (and
> >> >> > therefore
more than one type specimen
> >> >> >>
included). All nominal genera obviously
> >> >> > have only
one type species, whether
> >> >> >> or
> >> >> > not the
genus is monotypic! Monotypy is the act of basing a
> >> >> > new genus
on
> >> >> >> a
single species. I have
> >> >> > never seen
or heard the term "monobasy"! I also
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> don't
think that these terms apply
> >> >> > to species,
i.e. basing a new species on
> >> >> >> a
single specimen doesn't make the
> >> >> > species
mono-anything!
> >> >> >>
Stephen
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
--------------------------------------------
> >> >> >> On Thu,
14/12/17, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
Subject:
> >> >> > [Taxacom]
monotypic or monobasic
> >> >> >> To:
> >> >> > "taxacom"
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> >> >>
Received: Thursday, 14 December, 2017,
> >> >> > 6:07 PM
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Dear
> >> >> >
colleagues,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I have
> >> >> > seen the
terms 'monotypic' and
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > 'monobasic'
applied to genera with a
> >> >> >> single
species. I am curious to know if there is a
> >> >> >>
technically correct choice for the use of these terms for
> >> >> >> such
genera. If anyone may be able to enlighten me as to the
> >> >> >> rules,
if any, governing how these terms are properly used I
> >> >> >> would
be most grateful.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> John
Grehan
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
_______________________________________________
> >> >> >> 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
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Send
Taxacom mailing
> >> >> > list
submissions
> >> >> >> to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via
> >> >> >> the
Web, visit:
> >> >> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> >> >> You can
reach the person managing the list at:
> >> >> >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
Nurturing Nuance
> >> >> > while
Assaulting
> >> >> >>
Ambiguity for 30 Some
> >> >> > Years,
1987-2017.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
_______________________________________________
> >> >> >> 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
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Send
Taxacom mailing
> >> >> > list
submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> >> >> To
subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web,
> >> >> > visit:
> >> >> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> >> >> You can
reach the person managing the list
> >> >> > at:
> >> >> >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
Nurturing Nuance
> >> >> > while
Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > ---
> >> >> >> Deze
e-mail is gecontroleerd op
> >> >> > virussen
door AVG.
> >> >> >> http://www.avg.com
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
_______________________________________________
> >> >> > 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
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Send
Taxacom mailing list
> >> >> > submissions
to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
To subscribe or
> >> >> > unsubscribe
via the Web, visit:
> >> >> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> >> > You can
reach the person managing the list at:
> >> >> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Nurturing
Nuance while
> >> >> > Assaulting
Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
_______________________________________________
> >> >> > 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
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Send
Taxacom mailing list submissions to
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> >> > To
subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> >> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> >> > You can
reach the person managing the list at:
> >> >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Nurturing
Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years,
> >> >> > 1987-2017.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
------------------------------
> >> >>
> >> >> Message: 2
> >> >> Date: Thu, 14
Dec 2017 20:13:15 +0000 (UTC)
> >> >> From: Stephen
Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> >> >> To: Lynn Raw
<lynn at afriherp.org>
> >> >> Cc: taxacom
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> >> Subject: Re:
[Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
> >> >> Message-ID:
<879602756.4731497.1513282395027 at mail.yahoo.com>
> >> >> Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> >> >>
> >> >> "Monobasic"
certainly is (or was) also used in taxonomy, but
> >> >> perhaps not so
much now, and any Google search only turns up the
> >> >> chemistry
> >> meaning.
> >> >>
> >> >> Stephen
> >> >>
> >> >>
--------------------------------------------
> >> >> On Fri,
15/12/17, Lynn Raw <lynn at afriherp.org>
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>Â Subject:
Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
> >> >>Â To:
"Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> >> >>Â Cc:
"taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
"Paul van Rijckevorsel"
> >> >> < dipteryx at freeler.nl>
> >> >>Â Received:
Friday, 15 December, 2017, 8:18 AM
> >> >>
> >> >>Â From what
I understand, monobasic is a term used in chemistry
> >> >> while monotypic
is a term used in taxonomy and nomenclature.
> >> >> Definitions of
both terms are available in good dictionaries or
> >> >> even on the
web.
> >> >>
> >> >>Â Lynn Raw
> >> >>
> >> >>Â Sent from
my iPad
> >> >>
> >> >>Â > On 14
Dec 2017, at 09:49, Stephen Thorpe
> >> >> <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> >> >>Â wrote:
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â >
Monotypy
> >> >>Â is a
nomenclatural term (ICZN) in relation to the fixationÂ
of
> >> >> a type species
of a new genus, but the grammatical variant
> >> >> monotypic has
broader meaning. It is perhaps ugly to have
> >> >> variants of the
same term with different meanings (one broader than
the other)!
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â >
Stephen
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â
--------------------------------------------
> >> >>Â > On
Thu, 14/12/17, Paul van RijckevorselÂ
> >> >> <dipteryx at freeler.nl>
> >> >>Â wrote:
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â >
Subject:
> >> >>Â Re:
[Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic >
> >> >>Â To:
"taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>Â
> Received:
> >> >> Thursday,
> 14
> >> >> December, 2017,
> >> >>Â 9:32 PM
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â > The
> >> >>Â correct
term should be
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â
"unispecific".
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â > The
term "monotypic" sounds
> >> >>Â >
nomenclatural, and
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â indeed has
been defined
> >> >>Â > as a
> >> >>Â
nomenclatural term
> >> >>Â > in
the ICNafp. By
> >> >>Â >
contrast, "unispecific"
> >> >>Â
represents
> >> >>Â > a
taxonomic concept
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â >
Sometimes
> >> >>Â
"monospecific" can be
> >> >>Â >
found,
> >> >>Â but this
> >> >>Â > is
ugly, as it is a hybrid
> >> >>Â >
combining a Greek and a
> >> >>Â > Latin
word
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â element.
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â > Paul
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â > -----
Original
> >> >>Â Message
-----
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â From:
"Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>Â
> To:
> "taxacom"
> >> >> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>;Â
> "John Grehan"
> >> >>Â >
<calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >> >>Â > Sent:
Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:44Â AMÂ >
Subject: Re:
> >> >> [Taxacom]
monotypic or > monobasic >Â
>Â >> I expect thatÂ
> >> >> these terms
don't have > very precise definitions and
that >>
> >> >> there >
may be a fair amount of variation in exact usage. My
> >> >> feelingÂ
> is that >> "monobasic" isn't >
used much any more.
> >> >> It presumably
means "with a single > >> basis", i.e.
"based on a > single species".
> >> >> Monotypic
presumably means "based > >> on a
single type",
> >> >> though
> >> >> > "type"
should, I think, be interpreted in the >>
general
> >> >> > sense,
> >> >> not as types in
the > nomenclatural sense (i.e. type
speciesÂ
> >> >> >> or
type specimens), which is a possible >
source of
> >> >> confusion. So, a
genus >> with > just one species
regarded as
> >> >> valid
would be monotypic, even > if theÂ
>> single species had
> >> >> synonyms
(and > therefore more than one type specimenÂ
>>
> >> >> included). All
nominal genera obviously > have only one type
> >> >> species,Â
whether >> or > not the genus is
monotypic! Monotypy
> >> >> is the act of
basing a > new genus on >> a
single species. I
> >> >> have >
never seen or heard the term "monobasy"! I alsoÂ
>Â >>
> >> >> don't think that
these terms apply > to species, i.e. basing a
> >> >> newÂ
species on >> a single specimen doesn't
make the > species mono-anything!
> >> >>Â >>
Stephen
> >> >>Â >>
> >> >>Â >>
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â
--------------------------------------------
> >> >>Â >>
On Thu, 14/12/17, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>Â
> wrote:
> >> >>Â >>
> >> >>Â >>
Subject:
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â [Taxacom]
monotypic or monobasic >>
> >> >>Â To:
> >> >>Â >
"taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>Â
>> Received:
> >> >> Thursday, 14
December, 2017, > 6:07 PM >>
> >> >>
> >> >>Â >>
Dear
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â
colleagues,
> >> >>Â >>
> >> >>Â >> I
have
> >> >>Â > seen
the
> >> >>Â terms
'monotypic' and
> >> >>Â >>
> >> >>Â >
'monobasic' applied to genera with a >>
single species. I
> >> >> am curious
to know if >> there is a technicallyÂ
correct >>
> >> >> choice for the
use of these terms for >> such genera. If
> >> >> anyone may
be able to >> enlighten me as to the
rules, if
> >> >> any,Â
>> governing how these terms are >>
properly used I would be most >>
grateful.
> >> >>Â >>
> >> >>Â >>
John
> >> >>Â Grehan
> >> >>Â >>
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â
_______________________________________________
> >> >>Â >>
Taxacom Mailing List
> >> >>Â >>
> >> >>Â > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> >> >>Â >>
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> >>Â >>
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be >>
searched at:
> >> >> http://taxacom.markmail.org >>Â >>
Send Taxacom mailing >
> >> >> list
submissions >> to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.eduÂ
>> To
> >> >> subscribe or
unsubscribe via the >> Web, visit:
> >> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> >>Â >>
You can reach the person managing the >>
list at:
> >> >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.eduÂ
>> >> Nurturing Nuance >
> >> >> while
Assaulting >> Ambiguity for 30 Some >
Years, 1987-2017.
> >> >>Â >>
> >> >>
> >> >>Â >>
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â
_______________________________________________
> >> >>Â >>
Taxacom Mailing List
> >> >>Â >>
> >> >>Â > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> >> >>Â >>
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> >>Â >>
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be >
searched at:
> >> >>Â >>
http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >> >>Â >>
> >> >>Â >>
Send Taxacom
> >> >>Â mailing
> >> >>Â > list
submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.eduÂ
>> To
> >> >> subscribe
> or
> >> >> unsubscribe via
the Web, > visit:
> >> >>Â >>
> >> >>Â http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> >>Â >>
You can reach the person managing the list >
at:
> >> >>Â >>
taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.eduÂ
>> >> Nurturing NuanceÂ
> >> >> > while
Assaulting Ambiguity for
> >> >>Â 30 Some
Years, 1987-2017.
> >> >>Â >>
> >> >>Â >>
> >> >>Â >>
> >> >>Â > ---
> >> >>Â >>
Deze e-mail
> >> >>Â is
gecontroleerd op
> >> >>Â >
virussen door
> >> >>Â AVG.
> >> >>Â >>
http://www.avg.com
> >> >>Â >>
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â
_______________________________________________
> >> >>Â >
Taxacom Mailing List
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> >> >>Â > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> >>Â > The
Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be > searched at:
> >> >> http://taxacom.markmail.org >Â > Send
Taxacom mailing list >
> >> >> submissions to
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.eduÂ
> To subscribe or
> >> >> unsubscribe via
the Web,
> >> >>Â visit:
> >> >>Â > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> >>Â > You
can reach the person managing the list
> >> >>Â at:
> >> >>Â > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.eduÂ
>Â > Nurturing NuanceÂ
> >> >> while >
Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â
_______________________________________________
> >> >>Â >
Taxacom Mailing List
> >> >>Â >
> >> >>Â Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> >> >>Â > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> >>Â > The
Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> >> >> http://taxacom.markmail.org >Â > Send
Taxacom mailing list
> >> >> submissions to
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.eduÂ
> To subscribe or
> >> >> unsubscribe via
the Web,
> >> >>Â visit:
> >> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> >>Â > You
can reach the person managing the list
> >> >>Â at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.eduÂ
>Â > Nurturing NuanceÂ
> >> >> while Assaulting
Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
------------------------------
> >> >>
> >> >> Message: 3
> >> >> Date: Fri, 15
Dec 2017 17:21:14 +0000
> >> >> From: Kenneth
Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
> >> >> To: taxacom
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> >> Subject:
[Taxacom] Three kinds of bacteria (Negibacteria the
> >> >> oldest)
> >> >> Message-ID:
> >> >>Â Â
  <CY4PR11MB1480650BB2E1588796035B5FC10B0 at CY4PR11MB1480.
> >> >>
namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
> >> >>
> >> >> Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >> >>
> >> >> Dear All,
> >> >>Â Â
  I am puzzled why the prokaryotes are still
classified as
> >> >> Domains Bacteria
and Archaea. The most fundamental divide
> >> >> should actually
be between Negibacteria (which possess the outer
> >> >> negibacterial
membrane) on the one hand, and the Posibacteria
> >> >> and
Archaebacteria (which have lost that
> >> >> outer
membrane). Cavalier-Smith 1998 proposed the name
Unibacteria
> >> for
> >> >> Posibacteria +
Archaebacteria (since they have only the one
> >> >> membrane, not
two).
> >> >>Â Â
 Cavalier-Smith, 2006 ("Rooting the tree of life by
> >> >> transition
> >> >> analyses") shows
that Negibacteria are the oldest of the three
> >> >> taxa,
> >> and
> >> >> Archaebacteria
are actually the youngest. I am pretty sure that is
> >> why
> >> >> eubacterial
trees are so screwed up, because using
> >> >> Archaebacteria
as the outgroup will misroot them (Archaebacteria
> >> >> are actually an
ingroup, not an outgroup).
> >> >>Â Â
 Anyway, the names Negibacteria and Posibacteria were
> >> >> proposed
> >> >> 30 years ago
(Cavalier-Smith, 1987), and they are excellent
> >> >> names which
subdivide the Eubacteria into two large and
> >> >> important
taxa. So why aren't they being used in databases like
> >> >> Catalogue of
Life and NCBI's Taxonomy Browser, etc. ? The Three
> >> >> Domain
classification of life is outdated and should have been
discarded a long time ago.
> >> >>Â Â
       Â
-----------------Ken Kinman Cavalier-Smith, 2006:
> >> >>Â Â
  https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img > >> >>
PMC1586193_1745-6150-1-19-2&req=4 Evolutionary
relationships
> >> >> among the four
major kinds o | Open-i<
> >> >> https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img > >> >>
PMC1586193_1745-6150-1-19-2&req=4>
> >> >>
openi.nlm.nih.gov
> >> >> Evolutionary
relationships among the four major kinds of cell.
> >> >> The horizontal
red arrow indicates the position of the universal
> >> >> root as inferred
from the first
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
------------------------------
> >> >>
> >> >> Message: 4
> >> >> Date: Fri, 15
Dec 2017 12:23:42 -0500
> >> >> From: John
Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >> >> To: taxacom
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> >> Subject:
[Taxacom] monotypic monobasic
> >> >> Message-ID:
> >> >>Â Â
 Â
<CADN0ud1U14x+Kqubn9W1YKFyDrOCbptMt0NJE69_
> >> >> VcyTZFFTjA at mail.gmail.com>
> >> >> Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >> >>
> >> >> My thanks for
the various responses. Much appreciated.
> >> >>
> >> >> John Grehan
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
------------------------------
> >> >>
> >> >> Subject: Digest
Footer
> >> >>
> >> >> 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
> >> >>
> >> >> Send Taxacom
mailing list submissions to
> >> >> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> >> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> >> You can reach
the person managing the list at:
> >> >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> >>
> >> >> Nurturing Nuance
while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years,
> >> 1987-2017.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
------------------------------
> >> >>
> >> >> End of Taxacom
Digest, Vol 140, Issue 11
> >> >>
****************************************
> >> >>
> >> >
_______________________________________________
> >> > 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
> >> >
> >> > Send Taxacom mailing
list submissions to
> >> > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> To
> >> > subscribe or
unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> >> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> > You can reach the
person managing the list at:
> >> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> >
> >> > Nurturing Nuance
while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years,
> >> 1987-2017.
> >> >
_______________________________________________
> >> > 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
> >> >
> >> > Send Taxacom mailing
list submissions to
> >> > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> To
> >> > subscribe or
unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> >> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> > You can reach the
person managing the list at:
> >> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> >
> >> > Nurturing Nuance
while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years,
> >> 1987-2017.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ---
> >> > Deze e-mail is
gecontroleerd op virussen door AVG.
> >> > http://www.avg.com
> >> >
> >>
> >>
_______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >> Send Taxacom mailing list
submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> To subscribe or
unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> You can reach the person
managing the list at:
> >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>
> >> Nurturing Nuance while
Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years,
> 1987-2017.
> >>
_______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >> Send Taxacom mailing list
submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> To subscribe or
unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> You can reach the person
managing the list at:
> >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>
> >> Nurturing Nuance while
Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years,
> 1987-2017.
> >>
_______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >> Send Taxacom mailing list
submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> To subscribe or
unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> You can reach the person
managing the list at:
> >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>
> >> Nurturing Nuance while
Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years,
> 1987-2017.
> >>
> >
> >
>
_______________________________________________
> 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
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list
submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
To
> subscribe or unsubscribe via the
Web, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing
the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting
Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
>
--
Javier Luque, PhD Candidate
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9, Canada
E-mail: luque at ualberta.ca
P Please consider the environment
before printing this e-mail
_______________________________________________
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
Send Taxacom mailing list submissions
to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the
list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting
Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
_______________________________________________
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
Send Taxacom mailing list submissions
to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the
Web, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the
list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting
Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list