[Taxacom] Type of Homo sapiens (was: Are species real? Doesn't matter.)
Richard Pyle
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Sun Jun 3 02:16:24 CDT 2007
Hi Dick,
We have good scientific reason to believe that subatomic particles exist.
We have good scientific reason to believe that atoms exist. We have good
scientific reason to believe that molecules exist. We have good scientific
reason to believe that living cells exist. We have good scientific reason to
believe that multicellular organisms exist. We even have good scientific
reason to believe that clades exist. We do NOT have any reason to believe
that "species" exist. What separates the first six things from the last is
that they all have definable and mostly unambiguous boundaries (in the case
of clades, these are reproductive events -- as in the most recent
reproductive event that is shared in the evolutionary histories of all
extant organisms within a defined set). Specifically, they have boundaries
that exist whether or not human beings exist. The boundaries that we define
for species (i.e., the circumscription of all individual organims -- alive,
dead, and yet-to-be-born) are simply that -- definitions that we create.
Subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, cells, multicellular organisms and
probably even clades are units that exist in nature whether or not humans
are here to observe them.
Aloha,
Rich
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Dick Jensen
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 10:29 AM
> To: Steve Manning
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type of Homo sapiens (was: Are species
> real? Doesn't matter.)
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list