[Taxacom] Retaining genus when its type species isn't diagnosable

Michael A. Ivie mivie at montana.edu
Tue Dec 6 18:17:01 CST 2016


Francisco,

I agree that you can do what you say, as many practices do not follow 
the Code, and in fact work pretty well anyway.  BUT, Stuart asked about 
"best practice."  It is a fact that if you don't know what the type 
species is, you cannot, by definition, know what the genus is.  Anyone 
could come along and perfectly validly (if unadvisedly) designate pretty 
much anything as the Neotype, and render all those other species 
incorrectly placed.  Arts. 75.3.5 and 75.3.6 give great latitude to 
deviate from the original concept.

75.3.5. evidence that the neotype is consistent with what is known of 
the former name-bearing type from the original description and from 
other sources; *however, a neotype may be based on a different sex or 
life stage, if necessary or desirable to secure stability of nomenclature;**
*
75.3.6. evidence that the neotype came as *nearly as practicable* from 
the original type locality [Art. 76.1] and, where relevant, from the 
same geological horizon or host species as the original name-bearing 
type (see also Article 76.3 and Recommendation 76A.1);

Best practice requires the stabilization of a Neotype.

Mike


On 12/6/2016 5:09 PM, Francisco Welter-Schultes wrote:
> You can certainly continue adding species to that genus.
>
> I understand that the type species cannot be firmly associated with 
> any existing known species, but it certainly belongs to a group of 
> species currently regarded to represent that genus. As long as nothing 
> happens the type species can remain a doubtful name within this genus.
>
> The problem arises once someone likes to split up the genus, and it is 
> impossible to tell to which subgroup the doubtful type species might 
> belong. In this case some action needs to be taken.
>
> Francisco
>
>
> Am 07.12.2016 um 00:24 schrieb Stephen Thorpe:
>> Hi Stuart,
>> There is no real problem that I can see with the type species of a 
>> genus being a nomen dubium. You could try, if you really wanted to, 
>> lodging an application with the ICZN for designation of a neotype for 
>> the type species, but if they don't see a real need, they might not 
>> bother.
>> Cheers,
>> Stephen
>>
>> --------------------------------------------
>> On Wed, 7/12/16, Stuart Longhorn <sjl197 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>   Subject: [Taxacom] Retaining genus when its type species isn't 
>> diagnosable
>>   To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>>   Received: Wednesday, 7 December, 2016, 12:06 PM
>>       Can someone explain to me the best practice of how to treat
>>   a genus/species when the genus is identifiable but the
>>   species identity of the type species is not?
>>       e.g. Genus Aus Smith 1900
>>     With designated type species Aus xus Smith 1900
>>     and several other species added later.
>>       If the type species is not identifiable (as a 'species'),
>>   but the 'genus' perse is from that/associated description,
>>   is it ok for the genus to be retained as valid (including
>>   possibly adding other species to the genus), while its type
>>   species simply can become nomen dubium?
>>       From this
>>     67.1.2. The name of a type species remains unchanged even
>>   when it is a junior synonym or homonym, or a suppressed name
>>   (see Article 
>> 81.2.1<http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?nfv=true&article=81#2.1>).
>>       Thanks in advance
>>     stuart
>>   _______________________________________________
>>   Taxacom Mailing List
>>   Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>   http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>   The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: 
>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>     Injecting Intellectual Liquidity for 29 years.
>>   _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: 
>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Injecting Intellectual Liquidity for 29 years.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: 
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Injecting Intellectual Liquidity for 29 years.

-- 
__________________________________________________

Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.

NOTE: two addresses with different Zip Codes depending on carriers

US Post Office Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
PO Box 173145
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA

UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59718
USA


(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu



More information about the Taxacom mailing list