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

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

From: "Steve Manning" <sdmanning at asub.edu>
> 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.

***
Actually, this is in the Code already:
"Art  2.1.  Every individual plant is treated as belonging to an indefinite
number of taxa of consecutively subordinate rank, among which the rank of 
species (species) is basic. "

This has been there since the 1952, Stockholm Code. In a different form it
has been there since the first, 1906, Vienna Rules. The botanical Code has
always set apart the rank of species as different from all other ranks.

As to why there is no explicit species definition in the Code, well, the
discussion on this list makes it abundantly clear that there is no close
agreement on how exactly to phrase such a definition. I would say that every
botanist using the Code has a pretty good idea why the rank of species is
different from all other ranks, without feeling the need to have it spelled
out to him.
Paul