[Taxacom] Type specimen

Robin Leech releech at telus.net
Sat May 18 18:44:05 CDT 2013


Hello Thomas, 
A Type Specimen (a single specimen) is NOT a Type Series (which by
definition is a number of specimens).  The type specimen, by default, is the
HOLOTYPE.
I just tuned in to this discussion, but, that's the way it is, mate.
Robin    

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas Pape
Sent: May-18-13 4:16 PM
To: taxacom
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen

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.





More information about the Taxacom mailing list