[Taxacom] Type specimen

John Grehan calabar.john at gmail.com
Sat May 18 11:20:17 CDT 2013


Interesting! I will have to dig into my files for where I developed a
different impression. Accessibility to other researchers would seem to be a
prime requisite because without such access types no longer operate or
exist as scientific objects.

John Grehan


On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de
> wrote:

> 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