[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 86, Issue 17

Krishtalka, Leonard krishtalka at ku.edu
Sat May 18 12:27:53 CDT 2013


The most entertaining comment in this long discussion about whether or not Linnaeus's description of Homo sapiens encompasses a type specimen of one kind or another, is “Linnaeus did not need to examine his wife...”  For the sake of romance and a happy Swedish home, I certainly hope he examined his wife frequently.

LK



Leonard Krishtalka
Director, Biodiversity Institute
Professor, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
The University of Kansas
602 Dyche Hall, 1345 Jayhawk Blvd.
Lawrence, KS 66045
785-864-4540
785-864-5335 (fax)
Krishtalka at ku.edu

From: taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: ‎Saturday‎, ‎May‎ ‎18‎, ‎2013 ‎12‎:‎03‎ ‎PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to
 taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
 taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Taxacom digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Ken Kinman)
   2. Re: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Ken Kinman)
   3. Re: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (John Grehan)
   4. Re: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Scott Thomson)
   5. Re: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Robin Leech)
   6. Re: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Curtis Clark)
   7. Re: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Ken Kinman)
   8. Type specimen (Andy Mabbett)
   9. Re: Type specimen (Tim Astrop)
  10. Re: Type specimen (John Landolt)
  11. Re: Type specimen (Doug Yanega)
  12. Re: Type specimen (Stephen Thorpe)
  13. Re: Type specimen (Doug Yanega)
  14. Re: Type specimens of Homo sapiens (Chris Thompson)
  15. Re: Type specimens of Homo sapiens (Doug Yanega)
  16. Re: Type specimen (Jim Betts)
  17. Re: Type specimen (Chris Thompson)
  18. Re: Type specimen (Stephen Thorpe)
  19. Re: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Curtis Clark)
  20. Re: Type specimen (Barry Roth)
  21. Re: Type specimen (Stephen Thorpe)
  22. Re: Type specimen (Juan Francisco Araya)
  23. Re: Type specimen (Geoff Read)
  24. Re: Type specimen (Stephen Thorpe)
  25. Re: Type specimen (Francisco Welter-Schultes)
  26. Re: Type specimen (John Grehan)
  27. Re: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (John Grehan)
  28. Re: Type specimen (Francisco Welter-Schultes)
  29. Re: Type specimen (John Grehan)
  30. Re: Type specimen (Adam Cotton)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 17:37:11 +0000
From: Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
Subject: [Taxacom] Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <SNT141-W10BCC555D54D4C7C7AB495C1AC0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Dear All,



     I have long advocated recognizing Neanderthals as an extinct subspecies (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), not as a separate species.  It has been a long time in coming, but there is increasing evidence of considerable interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals, so much so that most humans today carry 2-4% Neanderthal genes.  Denisovan genes apparently account for about 6-8% of present-day humans.   The percentages would probable be higher if Neanderthal populations had been higher.



     Actual fossil individuals that appear to be crosses between Neanderthals and modern humans have been found.  One was from a Neanderthal female and a modern male, although there are no known living descendants in that case (only from Neanderthal males and modern females), since mitochondrial Neanderthal genes do not appear in living populations.   I suspect that that there were a lot of Neanderthal males kidnapping modern females and having children with them (or was it more often consentual?).



     So for those who still prefer to recognize Neanderthals as a separate species, what are your arguments for continuing to do so?    Anyway, here is one article which came out just today:



Pennisi, Elizabeth (2013), "More Genomes from Denisova Cave Show Mixing of Early Human Groups", Science 340: 799, doi:10.1126/science.340.6134.799








------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 17:48:02 +0000
From: Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <SNT141-W6282A5AD5109C561A7CDBC1AC0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Dear All,



      I meant to say that Denisovan genes account for about 6-8% of the genome of present-day "Melanesians".



                     ----------------Ken



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> From: kinman at hotmail.com
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 17:37:11 +0000
> Subject: [Taxacom] Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> I have long advocated recognizing Neanderthals as an extinct subspecies (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), not as a separate species. It has been a long time in coming, but there is increasing evidence of considerable interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals, so much so that most humans today carry 2-4% Neanderthal genes. Denisovan genes apparently account for about 6-8% of present-day humans. The percentages would probable be higher if Neanderthal populations had been higher.
>
>
>
> Actual fossil individuals that appear to be crosses between Neanderthals and modern humans have been found. One was from a Neanderthal female and a modern male, although there are no known living descendants in that case (only from Neanderthal males and modern females), since mitochondrial Neanderthal genes do not appear in living populations. I suspect that that there were a lot of Neanderthal males kidnapping modern females and having children with them (or was it more often consentual?).
>
>
>
> So for those who still prefer to recognize Neanderthals as a separate species, what are your arguments for continuing to do so? Anyway, here is one article which came out just today:
>
>
>
> Pennisi, Elizabeth (2013), "More Genomes from Denisova Cave Show Mixing of Early Human Groups", Science 340: 799, doi:10.1126/science.340.6134.799
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 06:20:11 +1200
From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
To: Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID:
 <CADN0ud3EY8Z+V+4UQjnUCUfbn1MO6rWoyZA9apeU3pQb1HM4VA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

So interbreeding defines species?

I have not kept up with the molecular argument so I would be interested to
know if the 'Neanderthal' genes are identical in all base pairs and base
numbers? How have they been shown to be the same genes?

John Grehan


On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 5:37 AM, Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>
>
>      I have long advocated recognizing Neanderthals as an extinct
> subspecies (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), not as a separate species.  It
> has been a long time in coming, but there is increasing evidence of
> considerable interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals, so much
> so that most humans today carry 2-4% Neanderthal genes.  Denisovan genes
> apparently account for about 6-8% of present-day humans.   The percentages
> would probable be higher if Neanderthal populations had been higher.
>
>
>
>      Actual fossil individuals that appear to be crosses between
> Neanderthals and modern humans have been found.  One was from a Neanderthal
> female and a modern male, although there are no known living descendants in
> that case (only from Neanderthal males and modern females), since
> mitochondrial Neanderthal genes do not appear in living populations.   I
> suspect that that there were a lot of Neanderthal males kidnapping modern
> females and having children with them (or was it more often consentual?).
>
>
>
>      So for those who still prefer to recognize Neanderthals as a separate
> species, what are your arguments for continuing to do so?    Anyway, here
> is one article which came out just today:
>
>
>
> Pennisi, Elizabeth (2013), "More Genomes from Denisova Cave Show Mixing of
> Early Human Groups", Science 340: 799, doi:10.1126/science.340.6134.799
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 14:27:04 -0400
From: Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID:
 <CADRwqwio9iuUU20UfkhXnb=8v3j0ZKSZqMzCyBGF3B2anf+vsg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I am not sure about whether or not it is a species or a subspecies,
certainly is not a group I have studied. I would like to comment on
the hybrid issue though. I am concerned when the ability or inability
to hybridize is used as a benchmark on species / subspecies. The
reason is that a genetic incapacity to breed is only selected for if
the species have access to each other hence in species that arise in
allopatry it is not needed and may or may not evolve. My understanding
is that this is a group that arose in allopatry but later came
together and neanderthalensis was basically hybridized out of
existence. This does not mean they are the same species, after all
Chelodina longicollis and Emydura subglobosa can hybridise
successfully, with viable F2's. They are not even the same genus.
Point is they evolved in allopatry. My point is if they are subspecies
or species, fine I will go with either, but please the hybrid line is
a difficult and weak piece of evidence that I don't think makes the
point. I would be more interested in genomic evidence and
morphological evidence, look at levels of divergence between pure
populations etc.

Cheers, Scott

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
>
>
>       I meant to say that Denisovan genes account for about 6-8% of the genome of present-day "Melanesians".
>
>
>
>                      ----------------Ken
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>> From: kinman at hotmail.com
>> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 17:37:11 +0000
>> Subject: [Taxacom] Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have long advocated recognizing Neanderthals as an extinct subspecies (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), not as a separate species. It has been a long time in coming, but there is increasing evidence of considerable interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals, so much so that most humans today carry 2-4% Neanderthal genes. Denisovan genes apparently account for about 6-8% of present-day humans. The percentages would probable be higher if Neanderthal populations had been higher.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actual fossil individuals that appear to be crosses between Neanderthals and modern humans have been found. One was from a Neanderthal female and a modern male, although there are no known living descendants in that case (only from Neanderthal males and modern females), since mitochondrial Neanderthal genes do not appear in living populations. I suspect that that there were a lot of Neanderthal males kidnapping modern females and having children with them (or was it more often consentual?).
>>
>>
>>
>> So for those who still prefer to recognize Neanderthals as a separate species, what are your arguments for continuing to do so? Anyway, here is one article which came out just today:
>>
>>
>>
>> Pennisi, Elizabeth (2013), "More Genomes from Denisova Cave Show Mixing of Early Human Groups", Science 340: 799, doi:10.1126/science.340.6134.799
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.



--
Scott Thomson
29400 Rt 6
Youngsville, PA, 16371
USA
(814) 230 1151
cell - (814) 779 8457
Skype: Faendalimas
http://www.carettochelys.com



------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 14:03:00 -0600
From: "Robin Leech" <releech at telus.net>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
To: "'Scott Thomson'" <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Message-ID: <002b01ce5339$88c50e60$9a4f2b20$@net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

We put Celodina and Emydura in separate genera - but maybe they don't see it
that way.
Robin Leech

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Thomson
Sent: May-17-13 12:27 PM
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

I am not sure about whether or not it is a species or a subspecies,
certainly is not a group I have studied. I would like to comment on the
hybrid issue though. I am concerned when the ability or inability to
hybridize is used as a benchmark on species / subspecies. The reason is that
a genetic incapacity to breed is only selected for if the species have
access to each other hence in species that arise in allopatry it is not
needed and may or may not evolve. My understanding is that this is a group
that arose in allopatry but later came together and neanderthalensis was
basically hybridized out of existence. This does not mean they are the same
species, after all Chelodina longicollis and Emydura subglobosa can
hybridise successfully, with viable F2's. They are not even the same genus.
Point is they evolved in allopatry. My point is if they are subspecies or
species, fine I will go with either, but please the hybrid line is a
difficult and weak piece of evidence that I don't think makes the point. I
would be more interested in genomic evidence and morphological evidence,
look at levels of divergence between pure populations etc.

Cheers, Scott

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
>
>
>       I meant to say that Denisovan genes account for about 6-8% of the
genome of present-day "Melanesians".
>
>
>
>                      ----------------Ken
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
>> From: kinman at hotmail.com
>> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 17:37:11 +0000
>> Subject: [Taxacom] Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have long advocated recognizing Neanderthals as an extinct subspecies
(Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), not as a separate species. It has been a
long time in coming, but there is increasing evidence of considerable
interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals, so much so that most
humans today carry 2-4% Neanderthal genes. Denisovan genes apparently
account for about 6-8% of present-day humans. The percentages would probable
be higher if Neanderthal populations had been higher.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actual fossil individuals that appear to be crosses between Neanderthals
and modern humans have been found. One was from a Neanderthal female and a
modern male, although there are no known living descendants in that case
(only from Neanderthal males and modern females), since mitochondrial
Neanderthal genes do not appear in living populations. I suspect that that
there were a lot of Neanderthal males kidnapping modern females and having
children with them (or was it more often consentual?).
>>
>>
>>
>> So for those who still prefer to recognize Neanderthals as a separate
species, what are your arguments for continuing to do so? Anyway, here is
one article which came out just today:
>>
>>
>>
>> Pennisi, Elizabeth (2013), "More Genomes from Denisova Cave Show
>> Mixing of Early Human Groups", Science 340: 799,
>> doi:10.1126/science.340.6134.799
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.



--
Scott Thomson
29400 Rt 6
Youngsville, PA, 16371
USA
(814) 230 1151
cell - (814) 779 8457
Skype: Faendalimas
http://www.carettochelys.com

_______________________________________________
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.




------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 13:14:03 -0700
From: Curtis Clark <lists at curtisclark.org>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Message-ID: <51968F8B.6020308 at curtisclark.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 2013-05-17 11:27 AM, Scott Thomson wrote:
> ...neanderthalensis was basically hybridized out of
> existence.

I agree that hybridization shouldn't be overemphasized (I work with
flowering plants), but the evidence in this case doesn't support
"hybridized out of existence".

--
Curtis Clark        http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark
Biological Sciences                   +1 909 869 4140
Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona CA 91768




------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 23:15:15 +0000
From: Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
To: Curtis Clark <lists at curtisclark.org>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
 <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <SNT141-W605416E655F38E7E3B42FBC1AC0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi Curtis,



     Well, "hybridized out of existence" could be one of the factors involved (many of the molecularists involved use phrases like "genetic swamping").  Of course, another major factor was probably warfare (competition for shelter and food, fear, or males angry when their females got kidnapped).  Climate change has also been suggested for certain regions.  In any case, interbreeding can no longer be ignored as a major factor, and thus the subspecies vs. species debate needs to be reexamined.



                   -------------------Ken



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 13:14:03 -0700
> From: lists at curtisclark.org
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
>
> On 2013-05-17 11:27 AM, Scott Thomson wrote:
> > ...neanderthalensis was basically hybridized out of
> > existence.
>
> I agree that hybridization shouldn't be overemphasized (I work with
> flowering plants), but the evidence in this case doesn't support
> "hybridized out of existence".
>
> --
> Curtis Clark http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark
> Biological Sciences +1 909 869 4140
> Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona CA 91768
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.


------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 01:38:17 +0100
From: Andy Mabbett <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk>
Subject: [Taxacom] Type specimen
To: TaxaCom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID:
 <CABiXOE=GbAiVdPKuFRZDoNjvjD13OStQz+C1LHDHG5aVzZWbVQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Which is the type specimen for Homo sapiens?


------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 20:41:20 -0400
From: Tim Astrop <timastrop at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen
To: Andy Mabbett <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk>
Cc: TaxaCom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID:
 <CANw8CFBdMDG3D88DzdJZbriq-iBXWMzOC=mNUjn6-59jnWW+HA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Carl Linnaeus I believe?

*Tim Astrop, PhD Candidate*
Program in Integrative Bioscience, The University of Akron
timastrop.wordpress.com <http://www.timastrop.wordpress.com>





On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Andy Mabbett <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk>wrote:

> Which is the type specimen for Homo sapiens?
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>


------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 00:48:04 +0000
From: John Landolt <JLANDOLT at shepherd.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen
To: Tim Astrop <timastrop at gmail.com>, Andy Mabbett
 <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk>
Cc: TaxaCom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID:
 <71D4D66B98F43C4B9C8A72BFA3C490CC2FCCA7BE at MAILBOX2.shepherd.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

And I found this article interesting.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/who-is-the-type-specimen-of-homo-sapiens/

Cheers,

John

________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] on behalf of Tim Astrop [timastrop at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:41 PM
To: Andy Mabbett
Cc: TaxaCom
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen

Carl Linnaeus I believe?

*Tim Astrop, PhD Candidate*
Program in Integrative Bioscience, The University of Akron
timastrop.wordpress.com <http://www.timastrop.wordpress.com>





On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Andy Mabbett <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk>wrote:

> Which is the type specimen for Homo sapiens?
> _______________________________________________
> 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.


------------------------------

Message: 11
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 17:50:25 -0700
From: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen
To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <5196D051.4040604 at ucr.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

On 5/17/13 5:38 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> Which is the type specimen for Homo sapiens?
> _______________________________________________
>
Linnaeus is the holotype by implied monotypy. ICZN Chapter 16, Art
72.4.1 states: "The type series of a nominal species-group taxon
consists of all the specimens included by the author in the new nominal
taxon (whether directly or by bibliographic reference)". The important
things are that it says (1) specimens, and (2) "included by" not
"examined by". Then see Article 72.4.1.1 - "For a nominal species or
subspecies established before 2000, any evidence, published or
unpublished, may be taken into account to determine what specimens
constitute the type series." and Article 73.1.2 - "If the nominal
species-group taxon is based on a single specimen, either so stated or
implied in the original publication, that specimen is the holotype fixed
by monotypy (see Recommendation 73F). If the taxon was established
before 2000 evidence derived from outside the work itself may be taken
into account [Art. 72.4.1.1] to help identify the specimen." Linnaeus
made no explicit mention of any specimens that would have been in
addition to his own person, so Art. 72.4.1.1 taken together with 73.1.2
(an implied single specimen) resolves the issue of /Homo sapiens/ as
having a holotype by monotypy.

There are no syntypes, and no neotypes, despite claims of such that
appear in the literature (some published before the modern version of
the Code).

--
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



------------------------------

Message: 12
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 18:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen
To: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
 <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID:
 <1368839121.92221.YahooMailNeo at web161902.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

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 ...
?
Stephen


________________________________
From: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Saturday, 18 May 2013 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen


On 5/17/13 5:38 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> Which is the type specimen for Homo sapiens?
> _______________________________________________
>
Linnaeus is the holotype by implied monotypy. ICZN Chapter 16, Art
72.4.1 states: "The type series of a nominal species-group taxon
consists of all the specimens included by the author in the new nominal
taxon (whether directly or by bibliographic reference)". The important
things are that it says (1) specimens, and (2) "included by" not
"examined by". Then see Article 72.4.1.1 - "For a nominal species or
subspecies established before 2000, any evidence, published or
unpublished, may be taken into account to determine what specimens
constitute the type series." and Article 73.1.2 - "If the nominal
species-group taxon is based on a single specimen, either so stated or
implied in the original publication, that specimen is the holotype fixed
by monotypy (see Recommendation 73F). If the taxon was established
before 2000 evidence derived from outside the work itself may be taken
into account [Art. 72.4.1.1] to help identify the specimen." Linnaeus
made no explicit mention of any specimens that would have been in
addition to his own person, so Art. 72.4.1.1 taken together with 73.1.2
(an implied single specimen) resolves the issue of /Homo sapiens/ as
having a holotype by monotypy.

There are no syntypes, and no neotypes, despite claims of such that
appear in the literature (some published before the modern version of
the Code).

--
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.

------------------------------

Message: 13
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 18:23:27 -0700
From: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen
To: taxacom <TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU>
Message-ID: <5196D80F.4080109 at ucr.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

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



------------------------------

Message: 14
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 21:26:27 -0400
From: "Chris Thompson" <xelaalex at cox.net>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimens of Homo sapiens
To: "Doug Yanega" <dyanega at ucr.edu>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
 <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <50F104D72F674399991B5B078E7A41DC at ChrisPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
 reply-type=original

Sorry, Doug,

First, do examine the original description of Homo sapiens in Linnaeus
(1758, Systema Naturae, page 20-24) and you will see some references to
other works and you will see that he describes FIVE different variations of
his species.

So, obviously Linnaeus based his description on many specimens.

And as Linnaeus gave NO type specimen information for ANY of his species
descriptions, one merely must assume those specimens which today remains
associated with Linnaeus, such as in his personal collection (now in London)
are just SOME of the syntypes. But we do know he examined other specimens.
So, for Homo sapiens, I would at least include his wife, kids, colleagues
and friends, etc., as he clearly examined them and was familiar with them.

So, there is NO basis under the ICZN for an assumption of holotype by
implied monotypy as there is ample evidence for syntypes.

Yes, one could or some one may have properly designated Linnaeus as a
lectotype. Perhaps some reader my have a reference to such.

Cheers,

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Yanega
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:50 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen

On 5/17/13 5:38 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> Which is the type specimen for Homo sapiens?
> _______________________________________________
>
Linnaeus is the holotype by implied monotypy. ICZN Chapter 16, Art
72.4.1 states: "The type series of a nominal species-group taxon
consists of all the specimens included by the author in the new nominal
taxon (whether directly or by bibliographic reference)". The important
things are that it says (1) specimens, and (2) "included by" not
"examined by". Then see Article 72.4.1.1 - "For a nominal species or
subspecies established before 2000, any evidence, published or
unpublished, may be taken into account to determine what specimens
constitute the type series." and Article 73.1.2 - "If the nominal
species-group taxon is based on a single specimen, either so stated or
implied in the original publication, that specimen is the holotype fixed
by monotypy (see Recommendation 73F). If the taxon was established
before 2000 evidence derived from outside the work itself may be taken
into account [Art. 72.4.1.1] to help identify the specimen." Linnaeus
made no explicit mention of any specimens that would have been in
addition to his own person, so Art. 72.4.1.1 taken together with 73.1.2
(an implied single specimen) resolves the issue of /Homo sapiens/ as
having a holotype by monotypy.

There are no syntypes, and no neotypes, despite claims of such that
appear in the literature (some published before the modern version of
the Code).

--
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.




------------------------------

Message: 15
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 18:32:53 -0700
From: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimens of Homo sapiens
To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <5196DA45.9020100 at ucr.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

On 5/17/13 6:26 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
> Sorry, Doug,
>
> First, do examine the original description of Homo sapiens in Linnaeus
> (1758, Systema Naturae, page 20-24) and you will see some references
> to other works and you will see that he describes FIVE different
> variations of his species.
None of the specimens attributed to variants are eligible to be part of
the type series for sapiens sapiens. Here is David Notton's detailed
summary, from teh ICZN FAQ page:

" In Linnaeus' 10th edition of Systema Naturae
<http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/542> (Linnaeus, 1758)
which is taken to be the starting point of zoological nomenclature, he
described /Homo sapiens /including 6 named subgroups, i.e. ferus,
americanus, europaeus, asiaticus, afer and monstrosus. Ferus and
monstrosus are infrasubspecific because the content of the description
shows that ferus is used for feral children, those found in the wild,
differing only as a consequence of their upbringing, and monstrosus is
used for a mix of unrelated forms (part a) and people with modifications
of the body due to human artifice (part b). Consequently ferus and
monstrosus are not available names and do not enter into zoological
nomenclature. This leaves as available names americanus, europaeus,
asiaticus, and afer, which are subspecific names of /Homo sapiens/
(Article 45.6
<http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/includes/page.jsp?article=45&nfv=#6>).
Also from the principle of coordination there must be a subspecific name
sapiens, and the type of/Homo sapiens/ is by definition the type of the
subspecies /Homo sapiens sapiens/ (Article 43
<http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/includes/page.jsp?article=43&nfv=>).

Linnaeus did not designate a type for /Homo sapiens/ or any of its
nominal subspecies -  that was not the custom then. However, the type
series consists of all the specimens he included (Article 72.4
<http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/includes/page.jsp?article=72&nfv=#4>)
according to the characters given in his descriptions. The description
of /Homo sapiens/ is drawn broadly; it spreads over five pages, starting
??1. H[omo] diurnus; varians cultura, loco.?? Then describing the 6
subgroups, continuing with the general description from the end of the
description of monstrosus to page 24, from ??Habitat inter Tropicos? ??
to ??Pedes Talis incedentes??. The description for /Homo sapiens
sapiens/ is all the parts of the description that do not include the
named subgroups and similarly the type material is all those specimens
included by Linnaeus, not including those referred to under the named
subgroups (Article 72.4.1
<http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/includes/page.jsp?article=72&nfv=#4>).

It is certain that Linnaeus was present when he wrote this description
and that he regarded himself as included in /Homo sapiens/. That he is
not part of any of his subgroups is clear from the descriptions, in
particular he is certainly not part of /Homo sapiens europaeus/ since
this subspecies is described as 'Pilis flavescentibus, prolixis. Oculis
caeruleis' whereas Linnaeus has brown hair and eyes (Tullberg, 1907). He
is therefore included in the type series of /Homo sapiens sapiens/
(Article 72.4.1.1
<http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/includes/page.jsp?article=72&nfv=#4>)."

The only point of dispute between myself and Notton is that the Code
SPECIFICALLY says "included by" rather than "examined by", which means
it is irrelevant whether or not Linnaeus ever examined his wife; unless
Linnaeus included her in the type series, she is not eligible to be a
syntype.

--
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



------------------------------

Message: 16
Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 13:35:00 +1200
From: "Jim Betts" <jimbetts at xtra.co.nz>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen
To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <91C0C42A363545D5BC59437B1B9357F6 at OwnerPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Yes, Linnaeus
W.T. Stearn has said this in several articles, the first in 1959.
*Since for nomenclatorial purposes the specimen most carefully studied and recorded by the author is to be accepted as the type [specimen], clearly Linnaeus himself, who was much addicted to autobiography, must stand as the type of his Homo sapiens!* (Systematic Zoology 8:4-22)
This sounds a bit whimsical, but seems to stack up.
The type specimen is situated in Uppsala Cathedral, and was interred there on 22 January 1778.
The circumstances would mean that it isn't easily available for scrutiny.
Google will easily locate discussion of the topic, [type specimen Homo sapiens] which terms out to be quite interesting.
Jim Betts


__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 8345 (20130517) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com



------------------------------

Message: 17
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 21:40:07 -0400
From: "Chris Thompson" <xelaalex at cox.net>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen
To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "Doug Yanega"
 <dyanega at ucr.edu>, <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <B5739AE7F5674139ABBFA1C3544021CB at ChrisPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
 reply-type=original

Yes, Stephen,

Linnaeus did describe 5 variants of his Homo sapiens and did not indicate
which was the typical form.

Look at the original description:

Sapiens.     1. [diagnosis] followed by some references.

then [alpha] - Americanus
         [beta] - Europaeus
         [gamma] - Asiaticus
         [delta] - Afer
         [epsilon] - Monstrosus

First one can argue whether these are "subspecies" or not, but what ever
they are they are based on types, that is, specimens that Linnaeus observed
or knew from the literature.

AND there are all equally available for lectotype designation of the
species. Hence, the first reviser can select any and then restrict the name
accordingly.

As for the statement about "no type series ..." ALL available / valid
descriptions have type specimens. If they did not, then the description
would be of an hypothetical concept and exclude from Zoological Nomenclature
(ICZN). The issue for some descriptions, however, is the determination of
the type series. Which as here can be difficult, but can be done.

Oh, well ...

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Thorpe
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:05 PM
To: Doug Yanega ; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen

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 ...

Stephen


________________________________
From: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Saturday, 18 May 2013 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen


On 5/17/13 5:38 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> Which is the type specimen for Homo sapiens?
> _______________________________________________
>
Linnaeus is the holotype by implied monotypy. ICZN Chapter 16, Art
72.4.1 states: "The type series of a nominal species-group taxon
consists of all the specimens included by the author in the new nominal
taxon (whether directly or by bibliographic reference)". The important
things are that it says (1) specimens, and (2) "included by" not
"examined by". Then see Article 72.4.1.1 - "For a nominal species or
subspecies established before 2000, any evidence, published or
unpublished, may be taken into account to determine what specimens
constitute the type series." and Article 73.1.2 - "If the nominal
species-group taxon is based on a single specimen, either so stated or
implied in the original publication, that specimen is the holotype fixed
by monotypy (see Recommendation 73F). If the taxon was established
before 2000 evidence derived from outside the work itself may be taken
into account [Art. 72.4.1.1] to help identify the specimen." Linnaeus
made no explicit mention of any specimens that would have been in
addition to his own person, so Art. 72.4.1.1 taken together with 73.1.2
(an implied single specimen) resolves the issue of /Homo sapiens/ as
having a holotype by monotypy.

There are no syntypes, and no neotypes, despite claims of such that
appear in the literature (some published before the modern version of
the Code).

--
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.




------------------------------

Message: 18
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 18:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen
To: Chris Thompson <xelaalex at cox.net>, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>,
 "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID:
 <1368841655.57029.YahooMailNeo at web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

No, Chris!
?72.4.1. The type series of a nominal species-group taxon consists of all the specimens included by the author in the new nominal taxon (whether directly or by bibliographic reference), except any that the author expressly excludes from the type series [Art. 72.4.6], *or refers to as distinct variants (e.g. by name, letter or number)*, or doubtfully attributes to the taxon.
?
The bit between * * is the relevant bit...
?
Cheers,
?
Stephen


________________________________
From: Chris Thompson <xelaalex at cox.net>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Saturday, 18 May 2013 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen


Yes, Stephen,

Linnaeus did describe 5 variants of his Homo sapiens and did not indicate
which was the typical form.

Look at the original description:

Sapiens.? ? 1. [diagnosis] followed by some references.

then [alpha] - Americanus
? ? ? ? [beta] - Europaeus
? ? ? ? [gamma] - Asiaticus
? ? ? ? [delta] - Afer
? ? ? ? [epsilon] - Monstrosus

First one can argue whether these are "subspecies" or not, but what ever
they are they are based on types, that is, specimens that Linnaeus observed
or knew from the literature.

AND there are all equally available for lectotype designation of the
species. Hence, the first reviser can select any and then restrict the name
accordingly.

As for the statement about "no type series ..." ALL available / valid
descriptions have type specimens. If they did not, then the description
would be of an hypothetical concept and exclude from Zoological Nomenclature
(ICZN). The issue for some descriptions, however, is the determination of
the type series. Which as here can be difficult, but can be done.

Oh, well ...

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Thorpe
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:05 PM
To: Doug Yanega ; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen

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 ...

Stephen


________________________________
From: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Saturday, 18 May 2013 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen


On 5/17/13 5:38 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> Which is the type specimen for Homo sapiens?
> _______________________________________________
>
Linnaeus is the holotype by implied monotypy. ICZN Chapter 16, Art
72.4.1 states: "The type series of a nominal species-group taxon
consists of all the specimens included by the author in the new nominal
taxon (whether directly or by bibliographic reference)". The important
things are that it says (1) specimens, and (2) "included by" not
"examined by". Then see Article 72.4.1.1 - "For a nominal species or
subspecies established before 2000, any evidence, published or
unpublished, may be taken into account to determine what specimens
constitute the type series." and Article 73.1.2 - "If the nominal
species-group taxon is based on a single specimen, either so stated or
implied in the original publication, that specimen is the holotype fixed
by monotypy (see Recommendation 73F). If the taxon was established
before 2000 evidence derived from outside the work itself may be taken
into account [Art. 72.4.1.1] to help identify the specimen." Linnaeus
made no explicit mention of any specimens that would have been in
addition to his own person, so Art. 72.4.1.1 taken together with 73.1.2
(an implied single specimen) resolves the issue of /Homo sapiens/ as
having a holotype by monotypy.

There are no syntypes, and no neotypes, despite claims of such that
appear in the literature (some published before the modern version of
the Code).

--
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.

------------------------------

Message: 19
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 18:54:57 -0700
From: Curtis Clark <lists at curtisclark.org>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <5196DF71.6060201 at curtisclark.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 2013-05-17 4:15 PM, Ken Kinman wrote:
>      Well, "hybridized out of existence" could be one of the factors
> involved (many of the molecularists involved use phrases like "genetic
> swamping").  Of course, another major factor was probably warfare
> (competition for shelter and food, fear, or males angry when their
> females got kidnapped).  Climate change has also been suggested for
> certain regions.  In any case, interbreeding can no longer be ignored
> as a major factor, and thus the subspecies vs. species debate needs to
> be reexamined.

Well, there's always evidence. I've not researched this in detail in the
primary literature, but the population levels of modern humans and
neanderthals over time, the paucity of clear hybrids, and the relatively
minor contribution of neanderthal genes in modern humans together argue
against "hybridized out of existence" or genetic swamping. Ecological
competition seems to be the null hypothesis to be falsified here.

--
Curtis Clark        http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark
Biological Sciences                   +1 909 869 4140
Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona CA 91768




------------------------------

Message: 20
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 20:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Barry Roth <barry_roth at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen
To: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>, taxacom
 <TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU>
Message-ID:
 <1368847522.43723.YahooMailNeo at web161802.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

So Mrs. Linnaeus can't be the allotype?? Awww.


From: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
To: taxacom <TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:23 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.

------------------------------

Message: 21
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 20:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen
To: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>, taxacom
 <TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU>
Message-ID:
 <1368848511.76796.YahooMailNeo at web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

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.

------------------------------

Message: 22
Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 01:20:57 -0400
From: Juan Francisco Araya <jfaraya at u.uchile.cl>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Message-ID:
 <CAOjiGYTA5kMzsNmkN4mzJKWrOb6WmjmeQ=P2NzvV=xGdQZSP=A at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hello to all:

Recently I came across this question on the ICZN website, they answer it
here:

http://iczn.org/content/who-type-homo-sapiens

And they link this discussion to a paper:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4065043?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102297904197

Hope it helps,

Regards,

Juan Francisco.


2013/5/17 Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>

> 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.
>


------------------------------

Message: 23
Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 17:54:38 +1200
From: "Geoff Read" <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen
To: "Andy Mabbett" <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk>
Cc: TaxaCom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID:
 <f89a7600e1de081b642273303bea06d0.squirrel at my.actrix.co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1


Must be a troll. Well fished Andy.

One of the times this came up on Taxacom in the past Earle Spamer, author
of the 'know thyself' paper in 1999, was a member of the list and gave his
answer (Jan 25 1995), then it came up again in Aug and in Oct the same
year, four years before he published his note in PNAS.

Geoff


On Sat, May 18, 2013 12:38 pm, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> Which is the type specimen for Homo sapiens?
> _______________________________________________





------------------------------

Message: 24
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 23:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen
To: Juan Francisco Araya <jfaraya at u.uchile.cl>,
 "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID:
 <1368856829.78245.YahooMailNeo at web161901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Again, I can only repeat the Code verbatim:??72.4.1. The type series of a nominal species-group taxon consists of all the specimens included by the author in the new nominal taxon (whether directly or by bibliographic reference), except any that the author expressly excludes from the type series [Art. 72.4.6], *or refers to as distinct variants (e.g. by name, letter or number)*, or doubtfully attributes to the taxon.?

The bit between * * is the relevant bit...
Note that, contra ICZN link (http://iczn.org/content/who-type-homo-sapiens), it is irrelevant if the races to which Linnaeus assigned all humans are subspecific, infrasubspecific, available, unavailable, etc. Even letters or numbers will do, according to 72.4.1.
?
The situation is perfectly clear. There is neither the need nor the possibility of a type specimen for Homo sapiens. In fact, most Linnaean names lack (extant) types ...
?
Cheers,
?
Stephen


________________________________
From: Juan Francisco Araya <jfaraya at u.uchile.cl>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Saturday, 18 May 2013 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen


Hello to all:

Recently I came across this question on the ICZN website, they answer it
here:

http://iczn.org/content/who-type-homo-sapiens

And they link this discussion to a paper:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4065043?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102297904197

Hope it helps,

Regards,

Juan Francisco.


2013/5/17 Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>

> 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.
>
_______________________________________________
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.

------------------------------

Message: 25
Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 14:48:28 +0200
From: "Francisco Welter-Schultes" <fwelter at gwdg.de>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen
To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID:
 <9ad745ebdf12fe905715b575a271768c.squirrel at mailbox.gwdg.de>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1

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 Linn?'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




------------------------------

Message: 26
Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 11:21:40 -0400
From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen
To: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID:
 <CADN0ud2-kMyA9EVSovNH6JLztQBObZeNc4-2my792vusUWCEig at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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 Linn?'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.
>


------------------------------

Message: 27
Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 11:28:40 -0400
From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
To: Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID:
 <CADN0ud2hr31OdHgE5+_5VzX-25=GN0-TTAqm99Z6MakZUZ4uug at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

And there is another possibility for neanderthal extinction (that may have
acted in concert with other factors) - that the neanderthal were a
primarily arboreal living species - i.e. it's primary place of residence
was above the ground (this does not preclude extensive and capable ground
locomotion or other ground activities). The literature is filled with the
cave man identity but to what extent caves were a primary residence (or
residence at all) may be more assumed than demonstrated. An argument has
been made that as forests declined with the onset of the last glacial
period the neanderthal population declined with it.

John Grehan


On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Curtis,
>
>
>
>      Well, "hybridized out of existence" could be one of the factors
> involved (many of the molecularists involved use phrases like "genetic
> swamping").  Of course, another major factor was probably warfare
> (competition for shelter and food, fear, or males angry when their females
> got kidnapped).  Climate change has also been suggested for certain
> regions.  In any case, interbreeding can no longer be ignored as a major
> factor, and thus the subspecies vs. species debate needs to be reexamined.
>
>
>
>                    -------------------Ken
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 13:14:03 -0700
> > From: lists at curtisclark.org
> > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
> >
> > On 2013-05-17 11:27 AM, Scott Thomson wrote:
> > > ...neanderthalensis was basically hybridized out of
> > > existence.
> >
> > I agree that hybridization shouldn't be overemphasized (I work with
> > flowering plants), but the evidence in this case doesn't support
> > "hybridized out of existence".
> >
> > --
> > Curtis Clark http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark
> > Biological Sciences +1 909 869 4140
> > Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona CA 91768
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>


------------------------------

Message: 28
Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 17:41:50 +0200
From: "Francisco Welter-Schultes" <fwelter at gwdg.de>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen
To: "John Grehan" <calabar.john at gmail.com>
Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID:
 <79d992552c5646007f59c6ae982cbcbc.squirrel at mailbox.gwdg.de>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1

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 Linn?'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




------------------------------

Message: 29
Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 12:20:17 -0400
From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen
To: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID:
 <CADN0ud0hjaY0hgQ+3tHB-HAhrMn_6J6oDX8a4DovOxLUyRPRsg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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
> >



More information about the Taxacom mailing list