type of Homo sapiens

Michael Ivie ueymi at GEMINI.OSCS.MONTANA.EDU
Sun Dec 31 15:00:32 CST 1995

It is amazing to me how many seemingly thinking people can be so silly
about subjects they should know about, not to mention that they are so
willing to advertize that fact on the net.  How anyone subscribing
to a listserver called "taxacom" can be taken in by Bakker's self
promotion is simply beyond me.  Is it to much to ask that people on
this list get their nomenclature information from a better source than
books from National Geographic photojournalists?

The facts.  Homo sapiens Linnaeus.  is the species name.  The description
been accepted by everyone as a Linnaen name.  It is surely on the list of
accepted names in zoology.  Therefore, Bakker cannot be the one to
formally describe it, or the name would be Homo sapiens Bakker!  If
Linnaeus' description had been found to be invalid (which it hasn't), the
name would go to the next person to use it with a 3 word description.
Can ANYONE really think no one between 1758 and Bakker did this?

Further, Cope can't be the type.  Since he didn't exist at the time of
the description (except in the mind of Shirley McLean), he cannot be part
of the type series.  Since Linnaeus' remains do exist, and since they
were obviously before the describer at the time, they are obviously part
of the type series, thus eliminating designation of any subsequent
specimen.  Since the description refers to the author
("yourself" in the context used), it can even be considered that the
remains of Linne are the HOLOTYPE!!!

Even if they didn't exist, Bakker's designation of a neotype would be
invalid.  He is not a reviser, and no taxonomic confusion requires
designation of a Neotype.  The Code specifically forbids desgnation of a
Neotype for spurious reasons.  Therefore, Bakker is ineligible to
designate a Neotype.

No systematist should be giving the slightest credence to Bakker in this
way.  He is a publicity hound, and in my opinion and those of
paleontologists I respect, an embarrassement.  He is not an academic
biologist, obviously for a good reason.

Please think about what you put up on the net, as it is easy to make a fool
of yourself to the whole world.

Mike Ivie

P.S. if ANYONE thinks this deserves more time (not my view), I believe
there is an opinion by the commission published 'way back near the
beginning that settled this issue, and encoded it as an official action.5~

More information about the Taxacom mailing list