[Taxacom] When electing a neotype, how to define the other gender

Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman viper007 at live.com.au
Tue Oct 1 05:42:49 CDT 2013

This is a rare occasion you talk sense Wolfgang Wuster, but I am surprised you are talking about changing the rules of nomenclature considering you are a serial offender at acting in breach of them and recently wrote a piece telling others to engage in mass disobedience to the Code!
Staying on topic, I might add that there are a number of other hazards in terms of relying solely on molecular material and sequences as holotype material, not the least being the not unheard of situation of samples getting mixed up or otherwise confused.
All the best 

Snakebustersâ - Australia's best reptilesâ

The only hands-on reptilesâ shows that lets people hold the animalsâ.

Reptile partiesâ, events, courses
Phones: 9812 3322

0412 777 211

> From: w.wuster at bangor.ac.uk
> To: scott.thomson321 at gmail.com; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 09:40:37 +0000
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] When electing a neotype, how to define the other gender
> The suggestion that "Genbank sequence = no need for a neotype" is not necessarily quite so straightforward. For instance, if the only available sequences are mitochondrial (as is often the case), but there is a possibility of intergrades/hybrids, then the designation of a neotype may well be required to establish the status of the taxon. Clearly this will depend on the individual situation and the nature of the available data - in some cases, I am sure a GenBank sequence will suffice, but not always.
> Cheers,
> Wolfgang
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Thomson
> Sent: 01 October 2013 10:14
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] When electing a neotype, how to define the other gender
> Anyway I had a question that follows on from Doug's point on Neotypes and
> modern DNA techniques. Hypothetically, if a recently described species has
> a holotype that had been sequenced and this sequence is now on GenBank or
> something and that type is subsequently lost wouldn't it be the case that
> it is unlikely a neotype could be justified since its sequence would still
> survive and could be compared to other specimens if needed. Although the
> specimen would be physically lost I would think that under these
> circumstances that sequence data would be enough to avoid taxonomic
> confusion hence the application of names would still be fairly clear?
> Rhif Elusen Gofrestredig 1141565 - Registered Charity No. 1141565
> Gall y neges e-bost hon, ac unrhyw atodiadau a anfonwyd gyda hi, gynnwys deunydd cyfrinachol ac wedi eu bwriadu i'w defnyddio'n unig gan y sawl y cawsant eu cyfeirio ato (atynt). Os ydych wedi derbyn y neges e-bost hon trwy gamgymeriad, rhowch wybod i'r anfonwr ar unwaith a dilewch y neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio a defnyddio, cadw neu ddatgelu unrhyw wybodaeth a gynhwysir ynddi. Mae unrhyw farn neu safbwynt yn eiddo i'r sawl a'i hanfonodd yn unig ac nid yw o anghenraid yn cynrychioli barn Prifysgol Bangor. Nid yw Prifysgol Bangor yn gwarantu bod y neges e-bost hon neu unrhyw atodiadau yn rhydd rhag firysau neu 100% yn ddiogel. Oni bai fod hyn wedi ei ddatgan yn uniongyrchol yn nhestun yr e-bost, nid bwriad y neges e-bost hon yw ffurfio contract rhwymol - mae rhestr o lofnodwyr awdurdodedig ar gael o Swyddfa Cyllid Prifysgol Bangor.
> This email and any attachments may contain confidential material and is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this email. Any views or opinions are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of Bangor University. Bangor University does not guarantee that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or 100% secure. Unless expressly stated in the body of the text of the email, this email is not intended to form a binding contract - a list of authorised signatories is available from the Bangor University Finance Office.
> _______________________________________________
> 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