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

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue Dec 6 20:04:29 CST 2016


That's basically why I said to Stuart that he could, if he really wanted to, go for a neotype designation. But the moot point remains (and this is relevant to the current controversy regarding photo-based taxonomy): 

Is it really "best practice", or is it just a mere technicality which serves no practical purpose?

The main reason, as I see it, for designation of a neotype in this case would be not because it is the type species of the genus, but rather just that it would allow us to use an already existing name for a taxon, i.e. it would render the name for the type species meaningful and useable. But then, on the other hand, one could use the name for a chosen taxon, without bothering with a neotype. The recent revision of the beetle genus Sagola basically does this for all Sagola names based on unidentifiable females. I don't necessarily see a problem with that. For as long as nobody contradicts those choices, there is no problem. If contradictions do arise, then neotypes will become necessary to solve the problem. So, the question becomes one of "do we need to solve problems in advance of those problems arising?" I'm not sure ...

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, 2:44 PM
 
 Well, I teach the Code to
 students, and when discussing Best Practice, I 
 would never use your idea that if you can get
 by with it, it is good 
 enough.  Yes, you
 can do it that way and it will usually slide (although 
 you are subject to those people who like to
 muck things up just for the 
 fun of it), but
 that is not Best Practice.  Best Practice is to dot 
 every 'I' and cross every 'T'
 so that stability is absolutely 
 established.  Sloppy works, we have far too
 many examples that prove 
 that, but is not
 the way to teach people Best Practice.
 
 Strictly speaking, if there is confusion as to
 the identity of the 
 species, that confusion
 and uncertainty extends throughout. If the 
 dubious species is the type of a genus, you
 extend that uncertainty.  
 You may say it
 is an acceptable level of uncertainty under a particular 
 circumstance because you can get away with it,
 but it is not Best Practice.
 
 Mike
 
 
 On 12/6/2016 6:33 PM, Francisco Welter-Schultes
 wrote:
 > 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,
 >>>
 >>
 >
 >
 _______________________________________________
 > 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.
 


More information about the Taxacom mailing list