[Taxacom] Type specimen

Francisco Welter-Schultes fwelter at gwdg.de
Sat May 18 10:41:50 CDT 2013


Dear John,
There is not statement in the Code that a type specimen must be
accessible, and there are no consequences if types are not accessible to
the public.

Francisco

> It is interesting (to me at least) to see how many speak authoritatively
> on
> the code only to disagree with each other over the same information (the
> code). It seems that rules begat their own scope for confusion. And please
> do not interpret this as saying get rid of the code or ignore it or
> anything like that. Its just a wry observation on the nature of science
> (where scientists may disagree completely with reference to the meaning of
> same information)
>
> I am not an expert on the code and don't have it in front of me. Is there
> not something in the code that refers to accessibility to the type? How
> would this apply to the remains of Linneaus?
>
> I have seen in hominid systematics the problem of accessibility is very
> serious as certain researchers who do not belong to the right clique are
> denied access. The other pervasive problem for hominid fossil taxa is the
> identification of fossil taxa as belonging to a certain taxon even though
> there is no matching element to the holotype where that holotype only
> consists of a partial fragment (e.g a jaw bone or a skull cap).
>
> John Grehan
>
>
> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Francisco Welter-Schultes
> <fwelter at gwdg.de>wrote:
>
>> Not necessary to repeat this all the time, Stephen.
>>
>> Art. 72.4.1 does not apply because the nominal taxon Homo sapiens had a
>> description.
>> You must consult the original source and read the text thoroughly.
>>
>> L. 1758, p. 20:
>> "Sapiens. I. H. diurnus; varians cultura, loca"
>>
>> "H[omo]. diurnus" (= species of the genus Homo, active at daytime) was a
>> description.
>>
>> Since the nominal subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens had a description, the
>> discussion about ferus, americanus, europaeus and the others (who have
>> their own types) has no bearing on the name-bearing type of the nominal
>> taxon Homo sapiens.
>>
>> I agree with those who argue that Stearn (1959: 4) validly designated
>> Carl
>> von Linné's remains in Uppsala as lectotype for Homo sapiens.
>>
>> My conclusion is in agreement with the one published by David Notton and
>> Chris Stringer on the ICZN website.
>> http://iczn.org/content/who-type-homo-sapiens
>>
>> They argued that the text from p. 21 "Habitat inter Tropicos..." until
>> p.
>> 24 "...Pedes Talis incedentes" would also refer to the nominal taxon H.
>> sapiens. This seems implicit from the contents, but it was not
>> explicitly
>> marked and seem from the style of the work it could also be argued that
>> this referred to monstruosus.
>>
>>
>>
>> Some aspects from Doug's arguments:
>>
>> I do not agree with Doug's interpretation of the terms "included by" as
>> being in contrast to "examined by".
>>
>> Art. 72.1.1 defines the type series as "all the specimens on which the
>> author established a nominal species-group taxon".
>>
>> > If one chooses to claim that every human being Linnaeus met
>> > during his lifetime was a syntype, then the same logic would apply to
>> > every cat, dog, horse, chicken, sparrow, etc. that Linnaeus saw prior
>> to
>> > publishing.
>>
>> The cats that Linnaeus saw himself before 1758 were in agreement with
>> Art.
>> 72.1.1 and formed part of the type series, in my interpretation of the
>> Code. The cats that he saw after 1758 not.
>> The intensity of examination and degree of thoroughness of study cannot
>> be
>> a criterion for a nomenclatural status. Only presence and absence can be
>> a
>> criterion.
>>
>> > That's why the wording of 72.4 is so important; it does not
>> > matter how many humans Linnaeus saw in his leftime, only how many he
>> > included when writing his description -
>>
>> Temporal aspects cannot be taken into account. The description can be
>> written 10 years after an author saw an animal.
>>
>> Art. 72.4.1 cannot contradict Art. 72.1.1.
>> Also in the Glossary we read "on which the original author bases a new
>> nominal species-group taxon."
>>
>> > since most of those were
>> > described as variants, they are also (by definition) excluded.
>>
>> A specimen that is syntype of one nominal taxon, can also be a syntype
>> of
>> another nominal taxon.
>> The problem we have in Art. 72.4.1 has the nature of an unintended gap
>> in
>> the Code that should be erased in the next edition. Name-bearing types
>> of
>> subordinate variants should also belong the nominal taxon if the nominal
>> taxon would otherwise remains without types.
>> I left a note in Gary's ICZN Wiki (20 Oct 2008) to fix this problem.
>>
>> I left another note today that the basic definition of the type series
>> in
>> Art. 72.1.1, Art. 72.4.1 and the Glossary should be aligned. I would
>> prefer the form used in Art. 72.1.1.
>> I also suggested to add an example:
>>
>> Linnaeus (1758) established the nominal taxon Sciurus vulgaris for the
>> Eurasian red squirrel. All live and dead specimens of Eurasian red
>> squirrels that Linnaeus ever saw before 1758 formed directly part of the
>> type series.
>>
>> This should in the future exclude such misunderstandings.
>>
>> Francisco
>>
>>
>>
>> > I repeat: there is no type series for Homo sapiens. There is no
>> holotype,
>> > and there can be no lectotype. Linnaeus partitioned H. sapiens into
>> named
>> > races, with no nominotypical race ...
>> >
>> > Stephen
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
>> > To: taxacom <TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU>
>> > Sent: Saturday, 18 May 2013 1:23 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen
>> >
>> >
>> > On 5/17/13 6:05 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>> >> Actually, no! There can be no type series for Homo sapiens. Linnaeus
>> >> split it up into named variants, which left no room for "typical" H.
>> >> sapiens. No specimens qualify for type status. The availability of
>> the
>> >> name is unaffected, however ...
>> >>
>> > Homo sapiens sapiens is defined via all the descriptions (from
>> something
>> > like 5 pages of text) NOT explicitly assigned to any of his 6
>> > availably-named subgroups; as such, even though there were no
>> explicitly
>> > included specimens, his own person is implied as the specimen so
>> > described. This is the basic conclusion that David Notton has put
>> forth
>> > elsewhere, with the exception that he claimed Linnaeus was a lectotype
>> > (which is impossible, given that there were no other included
>> > specimens). If one chooses to claim that every human being Linnaeus
>> met
>> > during his lifetime was a syntype, then the same logic would apply to
>> > every cat, dog, horse, chicken, sparrow, etc. that Linnaeus saw prior
>> to
>> > publishing. That's why the wording of 72.4 is so important; it does
>> not
>> > matter how many humans Linnaeus saw in his leftime, only how many he
>> > included when writing his description - and since most of those were
>> > described as variants, they are also (by definition) excluded. The
>> only
>> > specimen left to represent saapiens sapiens is Linnaeus.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology      Entomology Research Museum
>> > Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314    skype: dyanega
>> > phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
>> >               http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
>> >   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>> >         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Taxacom Mailing List
>> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> >
>> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
>> > methods:
>> >
>> > (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org/
>> >
>> > (2) a Google search specified as:
>> > site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>> >
>> > Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Taxacom Mailing List
>> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> >
>> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
>> > methods:
>> >
>> > (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>> >
>> > (2) a Google search specified as:
>> > site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>> >
>> > Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Francisco Welter-Schultes
>> Zoologisches Institut, Berliner Str. 28, D-37073 Goettingen
>> Phone +49 551 395536
>> http://www.animalbase.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>
>> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
>> methods:
>>
>> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:
>> mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>>
>> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
>>
>


Francisco Welter-Schultes
Zoologisches Institut, Berliner Str. 28, D-37073 Goettingen
Phone +49 551 395536
http://www.animalbase.org





More information about the Taxacom mailing list