[Taxacom] Type of Homo sapiens (was: Are species real? Doesn't matter.)
Steve Manning
sdmanning at asub.edu
Mon Jun 4 13:49:24 CDT 2007
At 03:28 PM 6/2/2007, Dick Jensen wrote:
>Steve Manning wrote:
> >any species, including Homo sapiens,
> >is real only when validly published, and then only as defined in said
> >valid publication(s) including any validly published amendments of
> >circumscription, etc.
>
>and Rich Pyle wrote:
> >I think the point is that the "entity" of a species exists in our minds, but
> >not in nature.
>
>Steve and Rich,
>
>Using this approach, then gold, as an atomic element, exists only in
>our minds and has no intrinsic reality (after all, humans are the
>ones who have described the properties of gold). From a pragmatic
>perspective, I reject both that and your insistence that species
>have no reality. To the extent that anything can be real, species,
>thought of as products of biological evolutionary processes (just as
>gold is the product of cosmic evolutionary processes), are
>real. They are there to be discovered by us.
I would have more sympathy with this idea if we had more precision
(i.e., rules) as to where to draw the line. For example, if species
A, B, C, and D have been described and validly published based on a
few specimens (not unusual even now in the tropics for example), but
a population geneticist or someone else later discovers clines
between populations of A, B, C, and D or does crosses between two or
more of them and finds fully fertile hybrids occur when this is done,
then apparently only one "real" species exists but four were
described. Yet if no one bothers to publish an official synonymy or
someone else finds that species A produces hybrids also with
population E but they are less vigorous or only 70% of them are
viable, it seems that we still have five species regardless of the
biological "reality". At the very least there is still uncertainty
about the species status of population E.
Is anyone interested in sponsoring or developing a committee to look
into sponsoring code amendments to require bringing species
nomenclature more into line with biological "reality"? I would be
willing to contribute to such efforts.
Should we set stricter standards and thereby approach what I consider
the ideal that Dick describes? I think so but also believe such
standards would have to include a judgment call on how much isolation
and how many data are needed before any species is accepted as a
biological species.
Mabye an example would help and I guess I have been assuming that
there are lots of comparable examples out there. I would be
interested in hearing of any others. I could stand corrected on
this. Let me explain anyhow. I had to make some kind of decision
regarding whether or not to combine two American species of Catalpa
and elected not to do so even though some specimens were essentially
indistinguishable (at least to me) even though some others could be
identified as one or the other based on published descriptions and
normal alpha-taxonomic methods. Further, anecdotal evidence in the
literature also indicates that Chinese and American Catalpas readily
hybridize when given the chance by planting them in close proximity,
even though the Chinese Catalpa is more easily distinguishable
visually. I elected not to combine any of the species even though my
personal belief is that all of them belong to the same species, sensu
Dick Jensen. This was due to the fact that the available evidence
for this was secondhand and not experimental and I decided not to
make a research project of attempted crosses, etc.! But I still do
believe that they are all within one biological "species" sensu Dick,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Steve
>
>
>To claim that species exist solely in our minds is, to me,
>equivalent to claiming that individual humans (e.g., Steve Manning
>or Rich Pyle) exist solely in our minds. I don't accept that
>either. I have never met either of you, but I do not doubt that you
>exist at the other end of this virtual connection).
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dick J
>
>
>Richard Jensen, Professor
>Department of Biology
>Saint Mary's College
>Notre Dame, IN 46556
>
>tel: 574-284-4674
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Steve Manning <sdmanning at asub.edu>
>To: Michael Schmitt <m.schmitt at uni-bonn.de>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>Sent: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 14:03:43 -0400 (EDT)
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type of Homo sapiens (was: Are species real?
>Doesn't matter.)
>
>After reading the posts on this subject to date, as well as earlier
>threads addressing the issue, my present conclusion without at all
>meaning to be facetious is that any species, including Homo sapiens,
>is real only when validly published, and then only as defined in said
>valid publication(s) including any validly published amendments of
>circumscription, etc.
>
>"Species" is much more a legalistic sort of concept than a biological
>one, though as I think Rich said its purpose seems to be mainly to
>facilitate communication (which it certainly does.)
>
>(I am aware of the biological species concept and, as I indicated
>some years ago in a similar discussion, if it were proposed that we
>amend the codes to require combining and synonymizing any species
>discovered to not be reproductively isolated from any other already
>described species, I would be most supportive of such a proposal. Of
>course that would require setting standards for how much and which
>types of reproductive isolation qualify, and how much evidence is
>required. But until any such code modifications are enacted, I will
>go with the above.)
>
>For what it is worth,
>Best,
>Steve
>
>At 07:57 AM 6/1/2007, Michael Schmitt wrote:
> >Dear colleagues,
> >
> >since "Homo sapiens" has been used as an example several times, and
> >since from time to time the idea is brought up that this or that
> >specimen could or should be the name-bearing type of our species, I
> >wonder if one (or some) of you could comment on my view on that point:
> >
> >(1) Neither has a holotype been fixed for Homo sapiens, nor does a
> >syntype series exist. Thus, a name-bearing type could only be reached
> >through neotype designation.
> >
> >(2) ICZN art. 75.2 states that "a neotype is not to be designated as
> >an end in itslef ...", and in art. 75.3 we read that "a neotype is
> >validly designated when there is an exceptional need and only when
> >that need is stated expressly ...".
> >
> >(3) I am not aware that the above requirements have been met by any
> >of the existing suggestions for a name-bearing type of Homo sapiens.
> >Consequently, no "type designation" for H.s. is valid up to now, and
> >all the discussions which specimen it might be are in vain.
> >
> >(4) I suspect that it is difficult to claim the necessity of a
> >neotype designation for H.s., at least as long as only extant
> >specimens (or individuals) are treated. Things might be different for
> >paleoanthropology, but even here must be demonstrated that there are
> >problems which cannot be solved without a name-bearing type for H.s.
> >
> >That much for now.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Michael
> >
> >At 23:22 31.05.2007, Neal Evenhuis wrote:
> > >At 4:01 PM -0500 5/31/07, Steve Manning wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Continuing to use Homo sapiens as an example, what evidence should be
> > > >used to test the hypothesis that this species is "real" and what
> > > >would constitute evidence sufficient to decide that this hypothesis
> > > >must be rejected? (i.e., was mistaken?). And, if this is a problem
> > > >to determine for Homo sapiens, is it not likely to be a greater
> > > >problem with less familiar species?
> > >
> > >However, before we do any "testing", we need to know what Homo
> > >sapiens is (i.e., what is the type specimen?) and thus have the
> > >proper exemplar used. The following was posted to the iczn-list a few
> > >years ago that helps confound the problem for what the type of Homo
> > >sapiens really is:
> > >
> > >***********
> > >There is an interesting twist to the Linnaean "subspecies" of Homo
> > >sapiens. Linnaeus (1758, p. 20-22) listed five varieties/subspecies
> > >under Homo sapiens. However, before these varieties he described wild
> > >or savage "ferus" Homo sapiens as "tetrapus, mutus, hirsutus", with
> > >several illustrations or examples cited. After each example, added in
> > >brackets is information from Seguin (1907, Idiocy: and its Treatment
> > >by the Physiological Method) taken from
> > >http://www.disabilitymuseum.org/lib/docs/1531.htm?page=3
> > >
> > >Juvenis Lupinus Hessensis. 1344. [1544, A young man found in Hesse
> > >among wolves.]
> > >Juvenis Ursinus Lithuanus. 1661. [A young man found among bears in
> > Lithuania.]
> > >Juvenis Ovinus Hibernus. Tulp. Obs. IV. [A young man found among wild
> > >sheep in Ireland.]
> > >Juvenis Hannoverianus. [1724, A young man found in Hanover.]
> > >Pueri 2 Pyrenaici. 1719. [Two boys found in the Pyrenees.]
> > >Johannes Leodisensis. [Boerhaave. John of Liege.]
> > >
> > >Article 72.4.1 of the ICZN Code excludes from the type series of a
> > >nominal species-group taxon specimens referred to as distinct
> > >variants. This means that specimens of Homo sapiens americanus,
> > >europaeus, asiaticus, afer, and monstrosus are not part of the type
> > >series of Homo sapiens and that Linnaeus is not eligible to be the
> > >lectotype (as designated by W. T. Stearn. 1959. Systematic Zoology
> > >8:4). We are thus left to select from among village idiots the
> > >lectotype for humankind.
> > >************
> > >
> > >Ain't nomenclature fun? Homer Simpson may be the archetype human ....
> > >
> > >Neal
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Taxacom mailing list
> > >Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > >http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> >************************************************************************
> >* Prof.Dr. Michael Schmitt (Zoologischer Anzeiger, Editor-in- *
> >* Chief; Bonner zoologische Beitraege, Editor-in-Chief) *
> >* Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig *
> >* Adenauerallee 160, D-53113 Bonn, Germany *
> >* Phone: +49 228-9122 286, Fax +49 228-9122 332 *
> >* e-mail: m.schmitt at uni-bonn.de *
> >* http://www.zfmk.de/web/ZFMK_Mitarbeiter/SchmittMichael/index.de.html *
> >************************************************************************
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Taxacom mailing list
> >Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
>Dr. Steve Manning
>Arkansas State University--Beebe
>Mathematics and Science
>Professor of Biology
>P.O. Box 1000
>Beebe, AR 72012
>Phone: 501-882-8203
>Fax: 501-882-4437
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Taxacom mailing list
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
Dr. Steve Manning
Arkansas State University--Beebe
Mathematics and Science
Professor of Biology
P.O. Box 1000
Beebe, AR 72012
Phone: 501-882-8203
Fax: 501-882-4437
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list