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

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue Dec 6 18:57:34 CST 2016


Mike, 

It is still technically a nomen dubium if you cannot associate the name with a unique recognised species. After all, where would you draw the line? I know it is an animal, but I don't know what kind of animal. I know it belongs to the Aus bus species complex, but I don't know which species. It is all the same.

BTW, somewhat amusingly, if anyone is inclined to take the Code too literally, how about this then?

1.3. Exclusions. Excluded from the provisions of the Code are names proposed

1.3.1. for hypothetical concepts;

Since species are hypothetical concepts (i.e. species are hypotheses to be tested), the Code explicitly excludes names for all species of animals!

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: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Wednesday, 7 December, 2016, 1:29 PM
 
 
     Stephen, I think we are talking at cross purposes. 
 In your
       example, you know what the type is, in Stuart's
 example he says 
       it is "nomen dubium."  I take this to be
 "...a
         scientific name that is of unknown or doubtful
 application."
       This is different.  In your example, you have a type,
 and you know
       what it is, but you cannot associate other specimens
 with it
       exactly.  In his, he simply does not know that the
 species name
       applies to at all.  If this is not what Stuart meant,
 then you are
       right.  
 
     
     Mike
 
     
     
 
     On 12/6/2016
 5:20 PM, Stephen Thorpe
       wrote:
 
     
     
       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.
  
 
 .
 
 
     
     
 
     -- 
 __________________________________________________
 
 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