leaving - When (animal) type genus is a subgenus
Thu Apr 26 15:05:20 CDT 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: "Margaret K. Thayer" <mthayer at FIELDMUSEUM.ORG>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: When (animal) type genus is a subgenus
> At 12:00 AM 26-04-2001 -0400, Ron Gatrelle wrote:
> All valid and available names are "always" affixed to an individual
>specimen - the name bearing type. ...
> This is true at the level of species-group names, but NOT at higher
> levels! The type of a genus-group name is a nominal species, and the
> of a family-group name is a nominal genus. This is stated extremely
> clearly in articles 67 and 63, respectively.
The point is so "extremely clearly" that in my book it is a "given". That
is why I put the word -always- in quotes. Putting the word in quotes
means - broadly or generally speaking - rather than categorically. I also
tried to eliminate the many variables - exceptions, conditions, etc. by
limiting this to those "names" which are strictly available and valid.
Zoological names are based and arranged dependent on organisms. No organism
no name. The type species of the genus and the type genus of the family
gain their rank, loose their rank, have their rank/status moved, dependant
upon the latest evolutionary assessment of organisms. (I am ignoring here
the multitude of technical rules ( e.g. latinization, priority, etc.) that
effect change.) Organisms do not follow the code the code follows the
organisms. (Enter phylocode?) The ICZN Code, as all codes, works as a
harmonic whole. All parts are interrelated and interdependent. (Further,
what happens change wise at the bottom affects the top more than the other
way around.) In establishing a type species (organism)as the type (name
wise) of the genus it does not change the fact that the species itself is
dependant on an organic specimen - and by organic extension (not
terminological extension) so is the genus.
> It pains me on a regular basis to see how few people seem to bother
> and understanding the relevant Codes before practicing (or even advising
> on!) taxonomic principles and practice.
Before we can practice the Code (implement it in formal publication), we
need to ask, advise, and philosophize on it - which is why the code itself
has rules, recommendations, examples, and most of all periodic revisions.
It is not the Ten Commandments written in stone. The sacred Code we
practice today is contrary in many areas to that of 1961. It is a means to
an end not the end.
What exactly was the original question anyway? (Rhetorical, do not answer.)
I have surely gone well away from it. Then again, maybe not.
More information about the Taxacom