[Taxacom] Type specimen

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun May 19 17:39:31 CDT 2013


Hi Thomas,
I think you are fixing on certain parts of the Code, but ignoring others. The present example has nothing essentially to do with subspecies. It simply has to do with named variants, and so Art. 72.4.1 applies. It all turns on whether you interpret Linnaeus as having partitioned Homo sapiens into named variants. If he did so, then each and every person known to Linnaeus was assigned to one of those variants, leaving nobody eligible to be a type specimen. Bear in mind that typological nomenclature post-dates Linnaeus, so he had no concept of a "typical" Homo sapiens. The stuff that you and Francisco are saying about the automatic proposal of Homo sapiens sapiens has no bearing on the issue!
As for your schematic example, Art. 72.4.1 clearly prescribes that there would indeed be no type material for Aus xus or Aus xus xus, if all material was assigned by the original author (in the original publication) to one or other of Aus xus yus and Aus xus zus. It is still true that the type material for Aus xus is automatically the same as that for Aus xus xus, but it is null in both cases. This would be an unfortunate error by the proposer of such names!
Cheers,
Stephen


________________________________
From: Thomas Pape <TPape at snm.ku.dk>
To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
Sent: Monday, 20 May 2013 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen


Stephen:

You mention that "Linnaeus included no specimens under H. sapiens sapiens", but the Code has no requirement for an explicit inclusion of specimens for names proposed before 2000. Numerous nominal species have been validly proposed without any mention of a specimen. Note that Article 72.4.1 allows that "any evidence, published or unpublished, may be taken into account to determine what specimens constitute the type series". This has already been dealt with during this thread, and it has been argued that Stearn made a valid lectotype designation. We have good reason to consider that Linnaeus included himself in the type series of Homo sapiens, and as far as I understand we even have evidence that he is not a particularly good fit within any of the subspecies/variants proposed. By proposing Homo sapiens, Linnaeus is deemed to also have proposed Homo sapiens sapiens. By designating Linnaeus as lectotype of Homo sapiens, Stearns automatically made Linnaeus
 the name-bearing type for Homo sapiens sapiens.

Another part of you argument is tied to Article 72.4.1 and the statement that the type series of a nominal species-group taxon excludes any specimens "that the author [...] refers to as distinct variants".

Consider this simple scenario: A species is described as Aus xus and stated to contain two subspecies "yus" and "zus" -- and with no mention of a nominotypical subspecies. The only material mentioned is some specimens clearly stated to belong to "yus" and other specimens clearly stated to belong to "zus". This means that the author is deemed to have proposed three nominal taxa:

Aus xus xus
Aus xus yus
Aus xus zus

You would probably argue, that Aus xus xus would not have any type specimens based on 72.4.1 as all the specimens were excluded. My way of reading the Code is that all the material mentioned would be type specimens of Aus xus, and when a lectotype is designated for Aus xus, this lectotype would also be the name-bearing type for Aus xus xus. This would mean that Aus xus xus would be the senior synonym of either one or the other of the non-nominotypical subspecies, depending on which specimen was designated as lectotype.

/Thomas


______________________________________________

Thomas Pape, Natural History Museum of Denmark
______________________________________________


-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: 19. maj 2013 22:28
To: Francisco Welter-Schultes
Cc: taxacom
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type specimen

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/
_______________________________________________
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