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

Francisco Welter-Schultes fwelter at gwdg.de
Tue Dec 6 19:33:45 CST 2016


We have no more detailed information on the case, but I understood that 
there was no confusion that the type species fits within the boundaries 
of that genus. Only the specific determination is doubtful.

If so, then Doug is correct in saying, no confusion is present here, and 
hence, no requirement for fixing a type under the Code.

The confusion is certainly for the specific identity, but we do not need 
to know the specific identity. Once again here, you don't need to know 
the identity at species level, so you don't need to fix a type. There is 
confusion, yes, but at this level the confusion does not matter. There 
is confusion about many many many names, but as long as this does not 
matter (because you don't need them) you don't need to fix types for them.

Francisco


Am 07.12.2016 um 02:16 schrieb Michael A. Ivie:
> Doug,
>
> No type specimen for SPECIES? No problem if there is no confusion.  
> Homo is the poster child for this. Therefore your statement "there are 
> lots of species with no type specimen" is obviously OK, and the Code 
> recognizes this in the restrictions on Neotype designation.
>
> But, I also said "Unknown type species?"  This changes the equation.  
> This question is specifically for a case where the identity of the 
> type species IS in question, I assume because of lack of a type.  In 
> this case, your examples do not apply under "Best Practice."
>
> The many genera with no correctly designated type species are also not 
> examples of Best Practice.  Yes,  they are out there, but it is not 
> what you can call "correct."
>
> You say "the Code does not *require* stabilization through 
> typification unless there is confusion." This was never in question, 
> we are talking about an example where there IS confusion, which is 
> what "dubium" means.
>
> Mike
>
>
> On 12/6/2016 6:06 PM, Doug Yanega wrote:
>> On 12/6/16 4:45 PM, Michael A. Ivie wrote:
>>> No type? Unknown type species for a genus? No objective standard of 
>>> reference for the application of the name it bears.  Period.
>> Actually, there are lots of species with no type specimen, and many 
>> genera with no type species (dubious or otherwise). Percentage-wise, 
>> both occurrences are perhaps rare, but the absolute numbers are 
>> significant. BEST PRACTICE is to follow the Code, and the Code does 
>> not *require* stabilization through typification unless there is 
>> confusion. This is at the core of a lot of ongoing controversy, but I 
>> and perhaps most Commissioners seem to be okay with the "If it ain't 
>> broke, don't fix it" approach here.
>>
>> If there is a genuine risk of a genus name being misapplied unless a 
>> type species is fixed, then yes, do it. Otherwise, don't worry.
>>
>> Peace,
>>
>



More information about the Taxacom mailing list