[Taxacom] Type specimen

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun May 19 15:27:39 CDT 2013


Again, Francisco, you argument bears no relevance to your conclusion! You appear to be confusing nomenclature with taxonomy. I'm guessing that your argument, worded more explicitly, is something like this. Linnaeus named several subspecies of H. sapiens, none of which was the nominotypical subspecies. However, the nominotypical subspecies exists by Art. 46.1, so all is well. Well, all is not well, Francisco, because Linnaeus included no specimens under H. sapiens sapiens, so the type series is again null and void! The type series would have to consist of individuals, known to Linnaeus, which were not Europeans, Africans, etc. and so I don't see any obvious candidates!!
 
Cheers, Stephen

From: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
Cc: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>; Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>; taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
Sent: Sunday, 19 May 2013 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen



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