[Taxacom] Taxonomic question
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Mar 19 19:33:28 CDT 2020
I would disagree very slightly with both Doug and Francisco in that I would say that it is the *intention* to denote a taxon which is the proper criterion, or else many old descriptions would be rendered unavailable for many important taxa! However, with a fossil, one might have to distinguish a taxonomic description from a mere description of which parts of the organism are preserved?
On Friday, 20 March 2020, 12:28:01 am UTC, Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
1865 p. 468 should be this one:
in addition to Doug's cited characters:
"the coriaceous integument of the body, and the hairs attached to the feet"
"resemblance to the recent genus Lycosa"
I would not employ the term "sad", for it lacks a neutral approach to
the situation. Either this description denoted the taxon at the time
when this was published, or not. Arachnological expertise is necessary
to judge this. If it did not denote the taxon, i.e. if the description
did clearly not allow to distinguish the taxon from others known at the
time, then the next available source must be consulted.
Am 20.03.2020 um 01:03 schrieb Doug Yanega via Taxacom:
> I found "On a fossil spider from the coal-measures of Upper Silesia".
> If this is treated as acceptable, it is very sad indeed that "four pairs
> of feet with all their segments and the two palpi" qualifies as a
> Code-compliant description.
Taxacom Mailing List
Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.
More information about the Taxacom