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

Kenneth Kinman kinman at hotmail.com
Tue Dec 6 20:41:47 CST 2016


Sounds a bit like "reasonable doubt" in courts of law.  You might be able to convince 11 jurors that there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  But it usually only takes one juror professing a reasonable doubt to declare a mistrial.  If that happens you might eventually end up having to appeal to a Supreme Court (in this case the ICZN). Two members of the ICZN don't seem to have a reasonable doubt in this case, so hopefully it will not come to that.


But I guess that doesn't prevent someone (a "12th juror", so to speak) from appealing to the Commission if they feel strongly about it.  I doubt that Michael would be that 12th juror, but probably just playing devil's advocate in warning that there could be one.  However, probably not much chance that reasonable doubt would sway an ICZN decision in this matter, and a minority doubt would no longer prevail (so why bother).

                            ---------------------Ken

________________________________
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 7:44 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Retaining genus when its type species isn't diagnosable

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
Taxacom Info Page - mailman.nhm.ku.edu Mailing Lists<http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom>
mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Taxacom is an e-mail list for biological systematics. Named and brought to life by Dr. Richard Zander, Taxacom began its peripatetic existence on a dark and snowy ...



> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
Taxacom Home - MarkMail - Community libraries<http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
taxacom.markmail.org
MarkMail(tm) is developed and hosted by MarkLogic Corporation. MarkMail is a free service for searching mailing list archives, with huge advantages over traditional ...



>
> 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
Taxacom Info Page - mailman.nhm.ku.edu Mailing Lists<http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom>
mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Taxacom is an e-mail list for biological systematics. Named and brought to life by Dr. Richard Zander, Taxacom began its peripatetic existence on a dark and snowy ...



The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Taxacom Home - MarkMail - Community libraries<http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
taxacom.markmail.org
MarkMail(tm) is developed and hosted by MarkLogic Corporation. MarkMail is a free service for searching mailing list archives, with huge advantages over traditional ...




Injecting Intellectual Liquidity for 29 years.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list