[Taxacom] Type specimen

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Sat May 18 18:20:36 CDT 2013


I guess we must agree to disagree, then.  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francisco Welter-Schultes [mailto:fwelter at gwdg.de]
> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:14 PM
> To: Richard Pyle
> Cc: 'Francisco Welter-Schultes'; 'Stephen Thorpe'; 'taxacom'
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Type specimen
> 
> Rich,
> 
> the other birds that escaped also formed part of the type series. Audubon
> might have derived information concerning their behaviour or specific
flight
> formations.
> It is only that those specimens were not well documented. So the question
is
> of minor importance in practical type selection procedures.
> 
> Francisco
> 
> >> Yes I would say that every cat that Linnaeus saw before 1758,
> >> convinced
> > him
> >> of it being a true species, and contributed information to his final
> > description.
> >> He might have looked more closely at some of those cats, and less
> >> closely
> > at
> >> others, but where would you draw the line to exclude some and include
> >> others?
> >
> > Inferring syntype series that are not explicitly stated is always
> > dangerous; but I still do not agree with your logic that the syntype
> > series must include every individual ever seen by the person
> > establishing the new name.
> > If John James Audubon observed a flock of 100 birds, then shot three
> > of them and deposited them in a Museum, and described it as a new
> > species based on those three species, is every bird in the entire
> > flock (indeed, every bird in every flock observed by Audobon) part of
> > the syntype series?  Or just the three specimens.  *Technically* you
> > could argue that there are thousands of members of the syntype series,
> > but I strongly suspect that most people would regard only three
> > specimens as being part of the syntype series.
> >
> > Were it only so simple that everything in the Code was based on purely
> > objective demarcations. (Indeed, it would be nice to find even *one*
> > thing in the Code that is utterly immune to ambiguity!)
> >
> >> For selecting a lectotype it is of course necessary to make sure that
> > Linnaeus
> >> actually saw this cat. It is the lack of documentation which usually
> > excludes
> >> most of such specimens.
> >
> > Yes, agreed.  I think we can certainly be confident that Linnaeus had
> > himself available for examination, so it is safe to include him among
> > the syntype series (and as a legitimate candidate for a lectotype).
> > I'm not quite so confident that he can be inferred to be the *only*
> > member of the type series for H. s. sapiens.
> >
> > Aloha,
> > Rich
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 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