[Taxacom] Type of Homo sapiens (was: Are species real? Doesn't matter.)

Sat Jun 2 13:03:43 CDT 2007

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