New hominid article

Ron at Ron at
Fri Dec 10 23:39:01 CST 2004

----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Kinman
Subject: Re: New hominid article

     But just off hand, I am frankly most concerned with the implication (or
is it a definite conclusion?) that the lower jaw (a paratype) is not the
same species as the cranium/upper jaw (the holotype).  Would this detract
substantially from the view that the holotype is a hominid (and I mean
"hominid" sensu stricto, not including chimps and gorillas)?
    ------- Ken Kinman

The only way this mandible can be a paratype is if it was specifically
stated to be from another specimen other than the holotype.  If the species
was originally described from these skull components as one specimen, then
the components are the holotype and no paratype is involved.  If it is now
suspect that the mandibular and maxillary bones are from different
specimens, and even different species, then Article 73.1.5 would come into
play and a formal note would need to be published stating which parts of the
holotype are to be retained as such and which part(s) excluded.

Thus, Ken's taxonomic concern is valid because the nomenclature would be
based on a subjective rather than objective typification (see 61.1 and 72.6)

Ron Gatrelle

More information about the Taxacom mailing list