[Taxacom] Type specimen

Francisco Welter-Schultes fwelter at gwdg.de
Sun May 19 05:08:03 CDT 2013


The name Homo sapiens was established with description.

Art. 46.1. Statement of the Principle of Coordination applied to
species-group names. A name established for a taxon at either rank in the
species group is deemed to have been simultaneously established by the
same author for a taxon at the other rank in the group; both nominal taxa
have the same name-bearing type, whether that type was fixed originally or
subsequently.

> Sorry Francisco, but what you say is irrelevant (and rather unclear at
> best). All that matters is that Linnaeus, in the same publication as the
> name Homo sapiens became an available name, partitioned (and I use that
> word carefully) the human species into named races, none of which was
> called "sapiens sapiens"., or anything like that. Nothing else is
> relevant. 72.4.1 does apply. It makes no reference to descriptions, so why
> do you? THERE CAN BE NO TYPE SPECIMEN OF H. SAPIENS ...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Stephen
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Cc: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>; taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, 19 May 2013 12:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen
>
>
> Not necessary to repeat this all the time, Stephen.
>
> Art. 72.4.1 does not apply because the nominal taxon Homo sapiens had a
> description.
> You must consult the original source and read the text thoroughly.
>
> L. 1758, p. 20:
> "Sapiens. I. H. diurnus; varians cultura, loca"
>
> "H[omo]. diurnus" (= species of the genus Homo, active at daytime) was a
> description.
>
> Since the nominal subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens had a description, the
> discussion about ferus, americanus, europaeus and the others (who have
> their own types) has no bearing on the name-bearing type of the nominal
> taxon Homo sapiens.
>
> I agree with those who argue that Stearn (1959: 4) validly designated Carl
> von Linné's remains in Uppsala as lectotype for Homo sapiens.
>
> My conclusion is in agreement with the one published by David Notton and
> Chris Stringer on the ICZN website.
> http://iczn.org/content/who-type-homo-sapiens
>
> They argued that the text from p. 21 "Habitat inter Tropicos..." until p.
> 24 "...Pedes Talis incedentes" would also refer to the nominal taxon H.
> sapiens. This seems implicit from the contents, but it was not explicitly
> marked and seem from the style of the work it could also be argued that
> this referred to monstruosus.
>
>
>
> Some aspects from Doug's arguments:
>
> I do not agree with Doug's interpretation of the terms "included by" as
> being in contrast to "examined by".
>
> Art. 72.1.1 defines the type series as "all the specimens on which the
> author established a nominal species-group taxon".
>
>> If one chooses to claim that every human being Linnaeus met
>> during his lifetime was a syntype, then the same logic would apply to
>> every cat, dog, horse, chicken, sparrow, etc. that Linnaeus saw prior to
>> publishing.
>
> The cats that Linnaeus saw himself before 1758 were in agreement with Art.
> 72.1.1 and formed part of the type series, in my interpretation of the
> Code. The cats that he saw after 1758 not.
> The intensity of examination and degree of thoroughness of study cannot be
> a criterion for a nomenclatural status. Only presence and absence can be a
> criterion.
>
>> That's why the wording of 72.4 is so important; it does not
>> matter how many humans Linnaeus saw in his leftime, only how many he
>> included when writing his description -
>
> Temporal aspects cannot be taken into account. The description can be
> written 10 years after an author saw an animal.
>
> Art. 72.4.1 cannot contradict Art. 72.1.1.
> Also in the Glossary we read "on which the original author bases a new
> nominal species-group taxon."
>
>> since most of those were
>> described as variants, they are also (by definition) excluded.
>
> A specimen that is syntype of one nominal taxon, can also be a syntype of
> another nominal taxon.
> The problem we have in Art. 72.4.1 has the nature of an unintended gap in
> the Code that should be erased in the next edition. Name-bearing types of
> subordinate variants should also belong the nominal taxon if the nominal
> taxon would otherwise remains without types.
> I left a note in Gary's ICZN Wiki (20 Oct 2008) to fix this problem.
>
> I left another note today that the basic definition of the type series in
> Art. 72.1.1, Art. 72.4.1 and the Glossary should be aligned. I would
> prefer the form used in Art. 72.1.1.
> I also suggested to add an example:
>
> Linnaeus (1758) established the nominal taxon Sciurus vulgaris for the
> Eurasian red squirrel. All live and dead specimens of Eurasian red
> squirrels that Linnaeus ever saw before 1758 formed directly part of the
> type series.
>
> This should in the future exclude such misunderstandings.
>
> Francisco
>
>
>
>> I repeat: there is no type series for Homo sapiens. There is no
>> holotype,
>> and there can be no lectotype. Linnaeus partitioned H. sapiens into
>> named
>> races, with no nominotypical race ...
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
>> To: taxacom <TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU>
>> Sent: Saturday, 18 May 2013 1:23 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen
>>
>>
>> On 5/17/13 6:05 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>>> Actually, no! There can be no type series for Homo sapiens. Linnaeus
>>> split it up into named variants, which left no room for "typical" H.
>>> sapiens. No specimens qualify for type status. The availability of the
>>> name is unaffected, however ...
>>>
>> Homo sapiens sapiens is defined via all the descriptions (from something
>> like 5 pages of text) NOT explicitly assigned to any of his 6
>> availably-named subgroups; as such, even though there were no explicitly
>> included specimens, his own person is implied as the specimen so
>> described. This is the basic conclusion that David Notton has put forth
>> elsewhere, with the exception that he claimed Linnaeus was a lectotype
>> (which is impossible, given that there were no other included
>> specimens). If one chooses to claim that every human being Linnaeus met
>> during his lifetime was a syntype, then the same logic would apply to
>> every cat, dog, horse, chicken, sparrow, etc. that Linnaeus saw prior to
>> publishing. That's why the wording of 72.4 is so important; it does not
>> matter how many humans Linnaeus saw in his leftime, only how many he
>> included when writing his description - and since most of those were
>> described as variants, they are also (by definition) excluded. The only
>> specimen left to represent saapiens sapiens is Linnaeus.
>>
>> --
>> Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology      Entomology Research Museum
>> Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314    skype: dyanega
>> phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
>>              http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
>>  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>>        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>
>> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
>> methods:
>>
>> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org/
>>
>> (2) a Google search specified as:
>> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>>
>> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>
>> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
>> methods:
>>
>> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org/
>>
>> (2) a Google search specified as:
>> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>>
>> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
>>
>
>
> Francisco Welter-Schultes
> Zoologisches Institut, Berliner Str. 28, D-37073 Goettingen
> Phone +49 551 395536
> http://www.animalbase.org/


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