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

Francisco Welter-Schultes fwelter at gwdg.de
Tue Dec 6 18:39:32 CST 2016


I also disagree, Mike, but maybe there is a misunderstanding as you just 
mentioned.

There is not need to identify the type species down to species level, in 
this case genus level identification is sufficient.

It is not possible to give a best practice advice without knowing more 
about the specific case. Much depends on the community. If it is likely 
that someone could designate a neotype in a way that distorts 
nomenclature, then it is useful to select a neotype. If there is silence 
and peace all around, and such a problematic action is not very likely, 
then selecting a neotype is not necessary. A neotype should not be 
designated as an end in itself (Art. 75.2), so it is only useful to 
select a neotype if there is a real need for it.

Francisco


Am 07.12.2016 um 01:20 schrieb Stephen Thorpe:
> 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.
>   
> _______________________________________________
> 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