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

Michael A. Ivie mivie at montana.edu
Tue Dec 6 18:45:09 CST 2016


Francisico,

However, Under Art. 67.1. Name-bearing types. "The name-bearing type of 
a nominal genus or subgenus is a nominal species called the 'type 
species.'"  Ipso facto, if you don't have a known type species, you 
don't have a known genus.  If there is any confusion at all, as 
indicated by the term "nomen dubium," the definition of the the genus is 
equally doubtful.

This follows from a very basic concept of the Code, the Principle of 
Typification, as explained in Art. 61:

"61.1. Statement of the Principle of Typification. Each nominal taxon in 
the family, genus or species groups has actually or potentially a 
name-bearing type. The fixation of the name-bearing type of a nominal 
taxon provides the objective standard of reference for the application 
of the name it bears.

61.1.1. No matter how the boundaries of a taxonomic taxon may vary in 
the opinion of zoologists the valid name of such a taxon is determined 
[Art. 23.3] from the name-bearing type(s) considered to belong within 
those boundaries."

No type? Unknown type species for a genus? No objective standard of 
reference for the application of the name it bears.  Period.

Mike


On 12/6/2016 5:39 PM, Francisco Welter-Schultes wrote:
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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