[Taxacom] Type specimen

Francisco Welter-Schultes fwelter at gwdg.de
Sat May 18 17:50:11 CDT 2013


I agree entirely. I had overlooked the relevance of Art. 89.1.

So I have added a remark in Gary's ICZN-Wiki for improving the next Code
edition, to
(1)
consider removing the type series definition from Art. 72.1.1 (something
that "should not be taken into account" can be removed from the Code), or
to align that definition with the others and add the reference to the
Glossary's entry, and
(2)
consider removing the reference to Art. 73.2 from the Glossary's first
sentence (because Art. 73.2 does not contain any contribution to the
definition of the type series. Art. 73.2 works with this term, but does
not define or characterise it).


Francisco


> The Code characterises "type series" at three different places:
>
> ARTICLE 72.1.1.
> type series: all the specimens on which the author established a nominal
> species-group taxon
>
> ARTICLE 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
>
> GLOSSARY:
> type series, n.
> The series of specimens, defined in Articles 72.4 and 73.2, on which the
> original author bases a new nominal species-group taxon.
>
> NOTE that the GLOSSARY restricts the definition of type series to
> Articles 72.4 and 73.2, and we know from Article 89.1. that "the meaning
> attributed in the Glossary to a word or expression is to be taken as its
> meaning for the purposes of the Code". This means that we should not be
> using the wording of Article 72.1.1 in direct arguments about what is
> the type series.
>
> Article 72.4.1 requires that the specimens forming the type series are
> included "directly or by bibliographic reference". The issue then is
> what is meant by specimens being included "directly" in a new nominal
> species. It seems reasonable to me that of the cats Linnaeus may have
> seen prior to 1758 not all would qualify as having been included
> "directly" in his concept of the nominal species Felis catus. But
> certainly some, perhaps even several, and probably more than those which
> he decided to keep in his collection. As Francisco mentioned, it may be
> difficult to "draw the line to exclude some and include others", which
> is exactly why the 4th editin of the Code now requires that for nominal
> species-group taxa established after 1999, "only those specimens
> expressly indicated by the author to be those upon which the new taxon
> was based are fixed as syntypes".
>
> /Thomas
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Pyle
> Sent: 18. maj 2013 21:26
> To: 'Francisco Welter-Schultes'; 'Stephen Thorpe'
> Cc: 'taxacom'
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen
>
> Hi Francisco,
>
> I either don't understand, or don't agree, with your point here:
>
>> 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.
>
> I agree with Doug that "included by" does not mean the same thing as
> "examined by".  Furthermore, the key word (in my opinion) in Art. 72.1.1
> is "established".  Just because a person "sees" an organism, doesn't
> mean that s/he necessarily "establishes" a new name on that organism.  I
> do not agree, in the context of the wording of Art. 72.1.1, that
> Linnaeus "established"
> the name Felis catus on every individual cat he had ever seen prior to
> 1758.
> Therefore, I do not interpret Art. 72.1.1 as including all such
> specimens as being part of the type series.
>
> Having said that, I'm a little uneasy on Doug's confidence in assuming
> monotypy for H. sapiens.  I think it's reasonably unambiguous that
> Linnaeus included himself as a member of H. sapiens sapiens, and it's
> certainly clear that he had himself to examine when writing the
> description.  However, I'm not so confident that we must conclude by
> inference or implication that he was the only specimen on which the new
> name was established.  I tend to lean more towards the Stearn
> lectotypification.
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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





More information about the Taxacom mailing list