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

Francisco Welter-Schultes fwelter at gwdg.de
Tue Dec 6 19:20:38 CST 2016


Mike,

You do have a nominal type species in this case. Nomen dubium is a 
misleading expression. The determination of the genus is not doubtful, 
as long as it is doubtless that your type species belongs to your genus. 
Simply said.

61.1.1: Taxon, not species. If the type species fits doubtlessly within 
the currently accepted boundaries of that genus, everything is fine.

Many species do not have preserved name-bearing types. As long as there 
is not need, no neotypes should be designated.

Francisco


Am 07.12.2016 um 01:45 schrieb Michael A. Ivie:
> 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.
>



More information about the Taxacom mailing list