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

David Campbell pleuronaia at gmail.com
Wed Dec 7 16:15:33 CST 2016


Some examples:
One case where the exact identity of the type species is not so important
is Cerasina Kobelt.  Type species is bulla Benson, but that is a nomen
nudum (locality but no description or figure).  However, Kobelt gave a
figure, thus establishing a species.  It's not entirely certain which
species his figure represents, but all candidates are close relatives
(besides, it's a subjective synonym).
One case where the exact identity is becoming important: Several nodulose
mussels from east Asia have been assigned to the genus Lamprotula.
Anatomical (including larval form) and genetic data now indicate that these
nodulose mussels are diphyletic.  Which group really is Lamprotula?  The
type, plumbea, Chemnitz, 1795 is not well-understood.  A neotype
designation would come in handy.

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 6:21 AM, Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
wrote:

> I answer to this one, Mike.
>
> Taken that the genus is defined as comprising all animals with four legs.
> There are various species inside which differ in the colour of their eyes.
> The type species has clearly 4 legs, but only a skeleton is preserved and
> nobody recorded which colour the eyes of the holotype had.
>
> There is no confusion on the question that this species belongs to this
> genus. The specific identity of the type specimen is not of interest.
>
> I do not know if your teaching is correct or appropriate in this point. If
> you have 5 nominal species inside a genus, 4 name are currently used for
> species, plus a 5th name, which is the doubtful type species. Now if the
> name of the type species is the oldest name of that set of 5 names, and you
> select a neotype that allows to identify it, that name will inevitably get
> in conflict with one of the four names that are in current usage. This can
> get very complicate because you need to take measures not to distort
> nomenclature. You cannot call this Best Practice. If you just leave the
> doubtful name as it is, you have no problems.
>
> Francisco
>
>
>
> Am 07.12.2016 um 02:29 schrieb Michael A. Ivie:
>
>> Francisco,
>>
>> Again, we have a definitional confusion situation (as stated by Stuart),
>> otherwise it is not an issue at all, which you repeat, but it does not
>> apply here.  If the identity of the type species is confused, how can you
>> "know" the species belongs to that genus?  There either is no confusion (no
>> action required or even allowed) or there is confusion (Best Practice is to
>> eliminate the confusion).
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/6/2016 6:20 PM, Francisco Welter-Schultes wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>



-- 
Dr. David Campbell
Assistant Professor, Geology
Department of Natural Sciences
Box 7270
Gardner-Webb University
Boiling Springs NC 28017


More information about the Taxacom mailing list