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

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue Dec 6 18:20:24 CST 2016


Hmm, now, Mike! You say"It is a fact that if you don't know what the type species is, you cannot, by definition, know what the genus is".

I disagree! You might know that the type species belongs within a group of cryptic species (which are clearly congeneric), but not know which of them it is (if the DNA cannot be sequenced, etc.)

Stephen


--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 7/12/16, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Retaining genus when its type species isn't	diagnosable
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Wednesday, 7 December, 2016, 1:17 PM
 
 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
 
 _______________________________________________
 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.
 


More information about the Taxacom mailing list