[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 110, Issue 5

Wed May 6 09:45:40 CDT 2015

For me the problem of the types is much more complex that all that. Imagine a species had described more than for one century by somebody that not even knows like it is the collection town. That person used materials of four species for the description. Although it didn't name type, the description it was made in function of the specimens of a town where there was breeding between two species. Breeding followed by introgression process. 
A hundred years later, another person, a super specialist of the group who never has seen the area, decided to name a type, and he used the most similar thing found in the description. Description that transforms two species into one. However, the botanists that collected the area intensively know very well the two species. Somebody then, described the second species. But as the describer it is not a super botanist, neither it publishes in Nature, that new species passed to synonymy, where it stays. A morphometric analysis demonstrates the hybridization, but for the same reason that to the previous one, nobody at least reads the publication
A new botanist arrives, he makes the analyses of DNA, he demonstrates the hybridization. But the species continues as synonym, because the reason always corresponds the botanist of the first world that never see an alive plant of none of the four species that it appear in the herbarium leaf.
There is this way a false type of a species that could be true, but alone if we keep in mind that a second exist with another name, and another noted type that nobody has been bothered in revising.
This is an example that is always certain because material test exists, but that it can cover false descriptions accepted by all, alone because it has been published in a super publication with the signature of a super author. I mention this case because it is about one of the more and better goods studied genus in botany, Pinus

Dr. Antonio López Almirall
Conservador del Herbario 
Museo Nacional de Historia Natural
Obispo 61, Plaza de Armas
Habana Vieja 10100, La Habana 
CUBA
Email cycas at mnhnc.inf.cu

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] En nombre de taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Enviado el: martes, 5 de mayo de 2015 12:00 p. m.
Para: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Asunto: Taxacom Digest, Vol 110, Issue 5

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to
	taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
	taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Taxacom digest..."

When responding to a message in a digest package, please do not copy the entire digest into your reply as it is tedious for your readers to scroll through pages of unrelated material and older replies.  Many thanks!
____________________________________

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Why stability? - Revisited (Weakley, Alan)
   2. LSU Keys update (Timothy Jones)
   3. Re: Why stability? - Revisited (Jim Croft)
   4. Re: Why stability? - Revisited (Weakley, Alan)
   5. Re: Why stability? - Revisited (Stephen Thorpe)
   6. Re: Why stability? - Revisited (Jim Croft)
   7. Re: Why stability? - Revisited (Richard Pyle)
   8. Re: Why stability? - Revisited (Stephen Thorpe)
   9. Re: Why stability? - Revisited (Weakley, Alan)
  10. Re: Why stability? - Revisited (Weakley, Alan)
  11. Re: Why stability? - Revisited (Stephen Thorpe)
  12. Re: Why stability? - Revisited (Stephen Thorpe)
  13. Re: Why stability? - Revisited (Robin Leech)
  14. Re: Why stability? - Revisited (Stephen Thorpe)
  15. Re: Why stability? - Revisited (JF Mate)
  16. Re: Why stability? - Revisited (Robin Leech)
  17. Re: Why stability? - Revisited (Stephen Thorpe)
  18. Re: Why stability? - Revisited (Stephen Thorpe)
  19. Re: Why stability? - Revisited (John Noyes)
  20. Re: Why stability? - Revisited (Richard Zander)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 19:20:41 +0000
From: "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
To: Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at freeler.nl>, TAXACOM
	<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
Message-ID:
	<DA4E4B8E9FF99A4A83FFF97C6669FDA9B86DDDBD at ITS-MSXMBS2M.ad.unc.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

The type is a flag in space around which the circumscription of a taxon (its concept) is defined -- usually in relation to other, "competing" taxa.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Paul van Rijckevorsel
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 7:57 AM
To: TAXACOM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

I was a little uneasy why Stephen Thorpe's attitude that taxa are defined by types is so alien to me.

But it is very straightforward: from the very first the 'botanical' Code has laid down that nomenclatural types are not necessarily the most typical or representative element of a taxon (that is, holding only the type, it is not possible to predict with any degree of confidence what the taxon exactly looks
like: the type is only the type) .

For plants there does exist a situation where the whole unit is determined by a reference specimen, namely in the ICNCP (Cultivated-plant-Code), resulting in names of the type Hydrangea macrophylla 'La France'.

The ICNCP deals with a field of considerable complexity (and which does benefit from regulation), but taxonomy is not involved.

Paul
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 15:28:11 -0500
From: Timothy Jones <tjone54 at tigers.lsu.edu>
To: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: [Taxacom] LSU Keys update
Message-ID:
	<CALtVFYe+HN40ier8+XXecnAC5OkJ6aZM_wtCkBZEpRYVuU7wUQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Howdy All,

Just wanted to inform everyone about a recent update to LSU Keys.   We
almost avoided mobilegeddon, as at least all the image keys will now work
on a w-ifi refrigerator.  All phones?  Not so sure.  Any feedback
appreciated but do realize that the tap-targets are too small for  the
average finger.

http://www.herbarium.lsu.edu/keys/visual-keys.html

Best,

Tim

PS  Dissertation complete and seeking new challenges.  Hint, hint.

-- 
Timothy M. Jones
Life Science Annex Building, Room A257
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Website - http://www.herbarium.lsu.edu/keys/

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 06:35:47 +1000
From: Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>
To: "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
Message-ID:
	<CAAWKeVMweLF0FNSBuRQzed2jpwg5d0J+g-k9Bo3S__6who3p8g at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

This is not strictly true. The purpose of the type is to anchor the name,
as Paul describes. It is not to centre, circumscribe or in any way define
the taxon. That is a separate process that may end up including one or more
types, and hence one or more names. At least with plants. People may think
they are defining a taxon by selecting the 'best' possible type to
represent their concept, and it is probably a wise thing to do, but this is
not what is happening according to the Code. They are simply anchoring the
name.

Jim
 On 05/05/2015 5:20 AM, "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu> wrote:

> The type is a flag in space around which the circumscription of a taxon
> (its concept) is defined -- usually in relation to other, "competing" taxa.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
> Paul van Rijckevorsel
> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 7:57 AM
> To: TAXACOM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
>
> I was a little uneasy why Stephen Thorpe's attitude that taxa are defined
> by types is so alien to me.
>
> But it is very straightforward: from the very first the 'botanical' Code
> has laid down that nomenclatural types are not necessarily the most typical
> or representative element of a taxon (that is, holding only the type, it is
> not possible to predict with any degree of confidence what the taxon
> exactly looks
> like: the type is only the type) .
>
> For plants there does exist a situation where the whole unit is determined
> by a reference specimen, namely in the ICNCP (Cultivated-plant-Code),
> resulting in names of the type Hydrangea macrophylla 'La France'.
>
> The ICNCP deals with a field of considerable complexity (and which does
> benefit from regulation), but taxonomy is not involved.
>
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 20:58:28 +0000
From: "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
To: Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>
Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
Message-ID:
	<DA4E4B8E9FF99A4A83FFF97C6669FDA9B86DF009 at ITS-MSXMBS2M.ad.unc.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I agree completely with what you say, Jim, and was making the same point you ae making – so, am not sure what you are objecting to in my “flag in the sand” analogy.  The flag might be over on one extreme edge of the “taxonspace” (as implied by Paul).  A type anchors a name but does not circumscribe it (except in the narrowest possible sense of the type itself).

In very poorly understood groups (with a high taxon:systematist ratio) the types stand large as outposts in the bleak unwatered and minimally taxonomist-turbed desert.  This seems to be what Stephen was describing in his universe.  As systematics proceeds, the types are still critical to anchor the application of names, but the emphasis shifts to the boundaries between the various flags (types), and which flags are taken over by others and become synonyms of what is regarded as a “good” taxon (not to sound too militaristic).  In the vascular flora of the Southeastern United States, 7200 taxa currently recognized, a very small percentage of taxa are unambiguously circumscribed based on their type alone.  Put another way, the great majority of taxa can only be unambiguously circumscribed by something beyond the name (as typified) because there are sensu stricto or sense lato interpretations “in play”.  If I write “Andropogon virginicus Linnaeus 1753” on a specimen (or a record in a database) without sec or sensu, no one tell whether I mean it in the narrowest sense, or variously including 1, 3, 7, or 12 other taxa recognized in “lumpier” taxonomic schemes currently or in recent decades followed by other credible taxonomic experts.

From: Jim Croft [mailto:jim.croft at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 4:36 PM
To: Weakley, Alan
Cc: TAXACOM; Paul van Rijckevorsel
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

This is not strictly true. The purpose of the type is to anchor the name, as Paul describes. It is not to centre, circumscribe or in any way define the taxon. That is a separate process that may end up including one or more types, and hence one or more names. At least with plants. People may think they are defining a taxon by selecting the 'best' possible type to represent their concept, and it is probably a wise thing to do, but this is not what is happening according to the Code. They are simply anchoring the name.

Jim
On 05/05/2015 5:20 AM, "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu<mailto:weakley at bio.unc.edu>> wrote:
The type is a flag in space around which the circumscription of a taxon (its concept) is defined -- usually in relation to other, "competing" taxa.

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>] On Behalf Of Paul van Rijckevorsel
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 7:57 AM
To: TAXACOM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

I was a little uneasy why Stephen Thorpe's attitude that taxa are defined by types is so alien to me.

But it is very straightforward: from the very first the 'botanical' Code has laid down that nomenclatural types are not necessarily the most typical or representative element of a taxon (that is, holding only the type, it is not possible to predict with any degree of confidence what the taxon exactly looks
like: the type is only the type) .

For plants there does exist a situation where the whole unit is determined by a reference specimen, namely in the ICNCP (Cultivated-plant-Code), resulting in names of the type Hydrangea macrophylla 'La France'.

The ICNCP deals with a field of considerable complexity (and which does benefit from regulation), but taxonomy is not involved.

Paul
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 14:05:11 -0700
From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
To: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, Paul van Rijckevorsel
	<dipteryx at freeler.nl>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
Message-ID:
	<1430773511.43818.YahooMailBasic at web160206.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

@Paul: That wasn't my attitude! My "attitude" had nothing directly to do with types. Rather, I was trying to point out that many species are distinctive enough to be able to be recognised again, on the basis of having seen just one specimen. That specimen need not be a type. It need not even be a described species. The point is that since you can't really get a "circumscription" out of a single specimen, it is quite possible to identify species without there being any kind of "circumscription"/"concept" involved.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 4/5/15, Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at freeler.nl> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
 To: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Monday, 4 May, 2015, 11:56 PM

 I was a little uneasy why Stephen
 Thorpe's attitude
 that taxa are defined by types is so alien to me.

 But it is very straightforward: from the very first
 the 'botanical' Code has laid down that nomenclatural
 types are not necessarily the most typical or 
 representative element of a taxon (that is, holding 
 only the type, it is not possible to predict with any 
 degree of confidence what the taxon exactly looks 
 like: the type is only the type) .

 For plants there does exist a situation where the whole 
 unit is determined by a reference specimen, namely in 
 the ICNCP (Cultivated-plant-Code), resulting in names 
 of the type Hydrangea macrophylla 'La France'.

 The ICNCP deals with a field of considerable complexity 
 (and which does benefit from regulation), but taxonomy
 is not involved.

 Paul
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

 Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 07:45:26 +1000
From: Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>
To: "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
Message-ID:
	<CAAWKeVPYa-6TLyx=LVQxrnrmSnLMjofzR2ZpRUETBDA3+OfbmQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

We are obviously in furious agreement. :)

It wasn't the 'flag in the sand' that caught my attention, but the 'around
which a taxon is defined' bit.  It is usually the other way - a taxon is
defined and a type is selected, either from existing, or newly designated
if none exists.

But we do seem to have a slight difference in approach, and it may be
simply semantic. "a very small percentage of taxa are unambiguously
circumscribed based on their type alone" - I don't circumscribe taxa based
on types as such. For the purposes of taxonomy, the type is just another
specimen, even if it is the only specimen. When the taxa are sorted, then
the type becomes important. I like to draw very clear distinctions between
the acts of taxonomy and nomenclature, and between the type specimen as a
specimen and the type specimen as a type. ;)

jim

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu> wrote:

>  I agree completely with what you say, Jim, and was making the same point
> you ae making – so, am not sure what you are objecting to in my “flag in
> the sand” analogy.  The flag might be over on one extreme edge of the
> “taxonspace” (as implied by Paul).  A type anchors a name but does not
> circumscribe it (except in the narrowest possible sense of the type itself).
>
>
>
> In very poorly understood groups (with a high taxon:systematist ratio) the
> types stand large as outposts in the bleak unwatered and minimally
> taxonomist-turbed desert.  This seems to be what Stephen was describing in
> his universe.  As systematics proceeds, the types are still critical to
> anchor the application of names, but the emphasis shifts to the boundaries
> between the various flags (types), and which flags are taken over by others
> and become synonyms of what is regarded as a “good” taxon (not to sound too
> militaristic).  In the vascular flora of the Southeastern United States,
> 7200 taxa currently recognized, a very small percentage of taxa are
> unambiguously circumscribed based on their type alone.  Put another way,
> the great majority of taxa can only be unambiguously circumscribed by
> something beyond the name (as typified) because there are sensu stricto or
> sense lato interpretations “in play”.  If I write “Andropogon virginicus
> Linnaeus 1753” on a specimen (or a record in a database) without sec or
> sensu, no one tell whether I mean it in the narrowest sense, or variously
> including 1, 3, 7, or 12 other taxa recognized in “lumpier” taxonomic
> schemes currently or in recent decades followed by other credible taxonomic
> experts.
>
>
>
> *From:* Jim Croft [mailto:jim.croft at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 4:36 PM
> *To:* Weakley, Alan
> *Cc:* TAXACOM; Paul van Rijckevorsel
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
>
>
>
> This is not strictly true. The purpose of the type is to anchor the name,
> as Paul describes. It is not to centre, circumscribe or in any way define
> the taxon. That is a separate process that may end up including one or more
> types, and hence one or more names. At least with plants. People may think
> they are defining a taxon by selecting the 'best' possible type to
> represent their concept, and it is probably a wise thing to do, but this is
> not what is happening according to the Code. They are simply anchoring the
> name.
>
> Jim
>
> On 05/05/2015 5:20 AM, "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu> wrote:
>
> The type is a flag in space around which the circumscription of a taxon
> (its concept) is defined -- usually in relation to other, "competing" taxa.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
> Paul van Rijckevorsel
> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 7:57 AM
> To: TAXACOM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
>
> I was a little uneasy why Stephen Thorpe's attitude that taxa are defined
> by types is so alien to me.
>
> But it is very straightforward: from the very first the 'botanical' Code
> has laid down that nomenclatural types are not necessarily the most typical
> or representative element of a taxon (that is, holding only the type, it is
> not possible to predict with any degree of confidence what the taxon
> exactly looks
> like: the type is only the type) .
>
> For plants there does exist a situation where the whole unit is determined
> by a reference specimen, namely in the ICNCP (Cultivated-plant-Code),
> resulting in names of the type Hydrangea macrophylla 'La France'.
>
> The ICNCP deals with a field of considerable complexity (and which does
> benefit from regulation), but taxonomy is not involved.
>
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
>
>

-- 
_________________
Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-(0)2-62509499 ~ +61 (0)418 675 936 ~
http://about.me/jrc

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 11:45:46 -1000
From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
To: "'Jim Croft'" <jim.croft at gmail.com>, "'Weakley, Alan'"
	<weakley at bio.unc.edu>
Cc: 'TAXACOM' <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
Message-ID: <002701d086b3$ae89aa70$0b9cff50$@bishopmuseum.org>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="utf-8"

The type specimens have one real functional role: to help decide which Linnean taxon name to apply to a concept.

When taxonomists define species-level taxon concepts, one of three possible circumstances may exist:

1) The concept circumscription does not include any individual organisms that have been designated as a name-bearing type for an available/validly-published Linnean name;

2) The concept circumscription includes exactly one organism that has been designated as a name-bearing type for an available/validly-published Linnean name;

3) The concept circumscription includes more than one organism that has been designated as a name-bearing type for an available/validly-published Linnean name.

In the first circumstance, a taxonomist is prompted to select one individual from within the taxon concept circumscription to serve as the name-bearing type for a new Linnean name.

In the second circumstance, the epithet associated with the single name-bearing type is the one that should be used to label the concept (which, among several possibly homotypic name combinations to apply is a question of classification, no nomenclature).

In the third circumstance, a taxonomist must consult the Codes of nomenclature (and associated materials, such as official lists and indexes of works and names) to determine which, among the multiple heterotypic names has the highest nomenclatural priority, and this the name that should be applied to label the concept. These same Codes are used to determine which names are available/validly-published, and which are not.

The principle extends to higher-rank names as well, but I hope that extension is reasonably evident based on a working knowledge of the Codes.

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences | Associate Zoologist in Ichthyology | Dive Safety Officer
Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252 email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
> Jim Croft
> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 10:36 AM
> To: Weakley, Alan
> Cc: TAXACOM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
> 
> This is not strictly true. The purpose of the type is to anchor the name, as Paul
> describes. It is not to centre, circumscribe or in any way define the taxon. That
> is a separate process that may end up including one or more types, and hence
> one or more names. At least with plants. People may think they are defining a
> taxon by selecting the 'best' possible type to represent their concept, and it is
> probably a wise thing to do, but this is not what is happening according to the
> Code. They are simply anchoring the name.
> 
> Jim
>  On 05/05/2015 5:20 AM, "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu> wrote:
> 
> > The type is a flag in space around which the circumscription of a
> > taxon (its concept) is defined -- usually in relation to other, "competing" taxa.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf
> Of
> > Paul van Rijckevorsel
> > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 7:57 AM
> > To: TAXACOM
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
> >
> > I was a little uneasy why Stephen Thorpe's attitude that taxa are
> > defined by types is so alien to me.
> >
> > But it is very straightforward: from the very first the 'botanical'
> > Code has laid down that nomenclatural types are not necessarily the
> > most typical or representative element of a taxon (that is, holding
> > only the type, it is not possible to predict with any degree of
> > confidence what the taxon exactly looks
> > like: the type is only the type) .
> >
> > For plants there does exist a situation where the whole unit is
> > determined by a reference specimen, namely in the ICNCP
> > (Cultivated-plant-Code), resulting in names of the type Hydrangea
> macrophylla 'La France'.
> >
> > The ICNCP deals with a field of considerable complexity (and which
> > does benefit from regulation), but taxonomy is not involved.
> >
> > Paul
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 14:58:18 -0700
From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
To: AlanWeakley <weakley at bio.unc.edu>, Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>
Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
Message-ID:
	<1430776698.86274.YahooMailBasic at web160205.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

> Put another way, the great majority of taxa can only be unambiguously circumscribed by
> something beyond the name (as typified) because there are sensu stricto or
> sense lato interpretations “in play”.

No! Maybe in botany. Not for the majority of species taxa overall (which are invertebrate animals). For many (but by no means all) of these species, a single specimen is enough to be able to recognise them (plus some experience in the group, so that one pays attention to likely important diagnostic characters). My identification here (http://naturewatch.org.nz/observations/1438142) is a good example. I simply compared two images of different specimens, and found them to be conspecific with high confidence. I knew nothing of the species concerned.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 5/5/15, Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
 To: "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
 Cc: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 9:45 AM

 We are obviously in furious
 agreement. :)

 It wasn't the 'flag in the sand' that caught my attention,
 but the 'around
 which a taxon is defined' bit.  It is usually the other
 way - a taxon is
 defined and a type is selected, either from existing, or
 newly designated
 if none exists.

 But we do seem to have a slight difference in approach, and
 it may be
 simply semantic. "a very small percentage of taxa are
 unambiguously
 circumscribed based on their type alone" - I don't
 circumscribe taxa based
 on types as such. For the purposes of taxonomy, the type is
 just another
 specimen, even if it is the only specimen. When the taxa are
 sorted, then
 the type becomes important. I like to draw very clear
 distinctions between
 the acts of taxonomy and nomenclature, and between the type
 specimen as a
 specimen and the type specimen as a type. ;)

 jim

 On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
 wrote:

 >  I agree completely with what you say, Jim, and
 was making the same point
 > you ae making – so, am not sure what you are
 objecting to in my “flag in
 > the sand” analogy.  The flag might be over on
 one extreme edge of the
 > “taxonspace” (as implied by Paul).  A type
 anchors a name but does not
 > circumscribe it (except in the narrowest possible sense
 of the type itself).
 >
 >
 >
 > In very poorly understood groups (with a high
 taxon:systematist ratio) the
 > types stand large as outposts in the bleak unwatered
 and minimally
 > taxonomist-turbed desert.  This seems to be what
 Stephen was describing in
 > his universe.  As systematics proceeds, the types
 are still critical to
 > anchor the application of names, but the emphasis
 shifts to the boundaries
 > between the various flags (types), and which flags are
 taken over by others
 > and become synonyms of what is regarded as a “good”
 taxon (not to sound too
 > militaristic).  In the vascular flora of the
 Southeastern United States,
 > 7200 taxa currently recognized, a very small percentage
 of taxa are
 > unambiguously circumscribed based on their type
 alone.  Put another way,
 > the great majority of taxa can only be unambiguously
 circumscribed by
 > something beyond the name (as typified) because there
 are sensu stricto or
 > sense lato interpretations “in play”.  If I
 write “Andropogon virginicus
 > Linnaeus 1753” on a specimen (or a record in a
 database) without sec or
 > sensu, no one tell whether I mean it in the narrowest
 sense, or variously
 > including 1, 3, 7, or 12 other taxa recognized in
 “lumpier” taxonomic
 > schemes currently or in recent decades followed by
 other credible taxonomic
 > experts.
 >
 >
 >
 > *From:* Jim Croft [mailto:jim.croft at gmail.com]
 > *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 4:36 PM
 > *To:* Weakley, Alan
 > *Cc:* TAXACOM; Paul van Rijckevorsel
 >
 > *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
 >
 >
 >
 > This is not strictly true. The purpose of the type is
 to anchor the name,
 > as Paul describes. It is not to centre, circumscribe or
 in any way define
 > the taxon. That is a separate process that may end up
 including one or more
 > types, and hence one or more names. At least with
 plants. People may think
 > they are defining a taxon by selecting the 'best'
 possible type to
 > represent their concept, and it is probably a wise
 thing to do, but this is
 > not what is happening according to the Code. They are
 simply anchoring the
 > name.
 >
 > Jim
 >
 > On 05/05/2015 5:20 AM, "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
 wrote:
 >
 > The type is a flag in space around which the
 circumscription of a taxon
 > (its concept) is defined -- usually in relation to
 other, "competing" taxa.
 >
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 On Behalf Of
 > Paul van Rijckevorsel
 > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 7:57 AM
 > To: TAXACOM
 > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
 >
 > I was a little uneasy why Stephen Thorpe's attitude
 that taxa are defined
 > by types is so alien to me.
 >
 > But it is very straightforward: from the very first the
 'botanical' Code
 > has laid down that nomenclatural types are not
 necessarily the most typical
 > or representative element of a taxon (that is, holding
 only the type, it is
 > not possible to predict with any degree of confidence
 what the taxon
 > exactly looks
 > like: the type is only the type) .
 >
 > For plants there does exist a situation where the whole
 unit is determined
 > by a reference specimen, namely in the ICNCP
 (Cultivated-plant-Code),
 > resulting in names of the type Hydrangea macrophylla
 'La France'.
 >
 > The ICNCP deals with a field of considerable complexity
 (and which does
 > benefit from regulation), but taxonomy is not
 involved.
 >
 > Paul
 > _______________________________________________
 > Taxacom Mailing List
 > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
 > http://taxacom.markmail.org
 >
 > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
 > _______________________________________________
 > Taxacom Mailing List
 > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
 > http://taxacom.markmail.org
 >
 > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
 >
 >

 -- 
 _________________
 Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com
 ~ +61-(0)2-62509499 ~ +61 (0)418 675 936 ~
 http://about.me/jrc
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

 Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 22:21:03 +0000
From: "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, Jim Croft
	<jim.croft at gmail.com>
Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
Message-ID:
	<DA4E4B8E9FF99A4A83FFF97C6669FDA9B86DF5E0 at ITS-MSXMBS2M.ad.unc.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I carefully circumscribed that statement as being relative to vascular plants in the Southeastern United States.  Granted:  large parts of the taxonomic world (like most invertebrate animal groups) are more like the a taxonomic desert I described, where types stand large as outposts in the bleak unwatered  and minimally  taxonomist-turbed concept space.

It's in some ways a good place to be.  You see something different, you name it.  Not so much jostling around with inadequately conceptualized OTHER taxa, messy old (inadequately typified) names, lumping-splitting debates, and the always fun rank (maybe a double meaning there) opinions.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz] 
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 5:58 PM
To: Weakley, Alan; Jim Croft
Cc: TAXACOM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

> Put another way, the great majority of taxa can only be unambiguously 
> circumscribed by something beyond the name (as typified) because there 
> are sensu stricto or sense lato interpretations “in play”.

No! Maybe in botany. Not for the majority of species taxa overall (which are invertebrate animals). For many (but by no means all) of these species, a single specimen is enough to be able to recognise them (plus some experience in the group, so that one pays attention to likely important diagnostic characters). My identification here (http://naturewatch.org.nz/observations/1438142) is a good example. I simply compared two images of different specimens, and found them to be conspecific with high confidence. I knew nothing of the species concerned.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 5/5/15, Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
 To: "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
 Cc: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 9:45 AM

 We are obviously in furious
 agreement. :)

 It wasn't the 'flag in the sand' that caught my attention,  but the 'around  which a taxon is defined' bit.  It is usually the other  way - a taxon is  defined and a type is selected, either from existing, or  newly designated  if none exists.

 But we do seem to have a slight difference in approach, and  it may be  simply semantic. "a very small percentage of taxa are  unambiguously  circumscribed based on their type alone" - I don't  circumscribe taxa based  on types as such. For the purposes of taxonomy, the type is  just another  specimen, even if it is the only specimen. When the taxa are  sorted, then  the type becomes important. I like to draw very clear  distinctions between  the acts of taxonomy and nomenclature, and between the type  specimen as a  specimen and the type specimen as a type. ;)

 jim

 On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
 wrote:

 >  I agree completely with what you say, Jim, and  was making the same point  > you ae making – so, am not sure what you are  objecting to in my “flag in  > the sand” analogy.  The flag might be over on  one extreme edge of the  > “taxonspace” (as implied by Paul).  A type  anchors a name but does not  > circumscribe it (except in the narrowest possible sense  of the type itself).
 >
 >
 >
 > In very poorly understood groups (with a high  taxon:systematist ratio) the  > types stand large as outposts in the bleak unwatered  and minimally  > taxonomist-turbed desert.  This seems to be what  Stephen was describing in  > his universe.  As systematics proceeds, the types  are still critical to  > anchor the application of names, but the emphasis  shifts to the boundaries  > between the various flags (types), and which flags are  taken over by others  > and become synonyms of what is regarded as a “good”
 taxon (not to sound too
 > militaristic).  In the vascular flora of the  Southeastern United States,  > 7200 taxa currently recognized, a very small percentage  of taxa are  > unambiguously circumscribed based on their type  alone.  Put another way,  > the great majority of taxa can only be unambiguously  circumscribed by  > something beyond the name (as typified) because there  are sensu stricto or  > sense lato interpretations “in play”.  If I  write “Andropogon virginicus  > Linnaeus 1753” on a specimen (or a record in a
 database) without sec or
 > sensu, no one tell whether I mean it in the narrowest  sense, or variously  > including 1, 3, 7, or 12 other taxa recognized in  “lumpier” taxonomic  > schemes currently or in recent decades followed by  other credible taxonomic  > experts.
 >
 >
 >
 > *From:* Jim Croft [mailto:jim.croft at gmail.com]  > *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 4:36 PM  > *To:* Weakley, Alan  > *Cc:* TAXACOM; Paul van Rijckevorsel  >  > *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited  >  >  >  > This is not strictly true. The purpose of the type is  to anchor the name,  > as Paul describes. It is not to centre, circumscribe or  in any way define  > the taxon. That is a separate process that may end up  including one or more  > types, and hence one or more names. At least with  plants. People may think  > they are defining a taxon by selecting the 'best'
 possible type to
 > represent their concept, and it is probably a wise  thing to do, but this is  > not what is happening according to the Code. They are  simply anchoring the  > name.
 >
 > Jim
 >
 > On 05/05/2015 5:20 AM, "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
 wrote:
 >
 > The type is a flag in space around which the  circumscription of a taxon  > (its concept) is defined -- usually in relation to  other, "competing" taxa.
 >
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 On Behalf Of
 > Paul van Rijckevorsel
 > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 7:57 AM
 > To: TAXACOM
 > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited  >  > I was a little uneasy why Stephen Thorpe's attitude  that taxa are defined  > by types is so alien to me.
 >
 > But it is very straightforward: from the very first the  'botanical' Code  > has laid down that nomenclatural types are not  necessarily the most typical  > or representative element of a taxon (that is, holding  only the type, it is  > not possible to predict with any degree of confidence  what the taxon  > exactly looks  > like: the type is only the type) .
 >
 > For plants there does exist a situation where the whole  unit is determined  > by a reference specimen, namely in the ICNCP  (Cultivated-plant-Code),  > resulting in names of the type Hydrangea macrophylla  'La France'.
 >
 > The ICNCP deals with a field of considerable complexity  (and which does  > benefit from regulation), but taxonomy is not  involved.
 >
 > Paul
 > _______________________________________________
 > Taxacom Mailing List
 > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
 > http://taxacom.markmail.org
 >
 > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
 > _______________________________________________
 > Taxacom Mailing List
 > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
 > http://taxacom.markmail.org
 >
 > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
 >
 >

 --
 _________________
 Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com
 ~ +61-(0)2-62509499 ~ +61 (0)418 675 936 ~  http://about.me/jrc  _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

 Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 22:22:53 +0000
From: "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
To: Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>
Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
Message-ID:
	<DA4E4B8E9FF99A4A83FFF97C6669FDA9B86DF628 at ITS-MSXMBS2M.ad.unc.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Jim – we are also in “furious agreement” on that.

From: Jim Croft [mailto:jim.croft at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 5:45 PM
To: Weakley, Alan
Cc: TAXACOM; Paul van Rijckevorsel
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

We are obviously in furious agreement. :)

It wasn't the 'flag in the sand' that caught my attention, but the 'around which a taxon is defined' bit.  It is usually the other way - a taxon is defined and a type is selected, either from existing, or newly designated if none exists.

But we do seem to have a slight difference in approach, and it may be simply semantic. "a very small percentage of taxa are unambiguously circumscribed based on their type alone" - I don't circumscribe taxa based on types as such. For the purposes of taxonomy, the type is just another specimen, even if it is the only specimen. When the taxa are sorted, then the type becomes important. I like to draw very clear distinctions between the acts of taxonomy and nomenclature, and between the type specimen as a specimen and the type specimen as a type. ;)

jim

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu<mailto:weakley at bio.unc.edu>> wrote:
I agree completely with what you say, Jim, and was making the same point you ae making – so, am not sure what you are objecting to in my “flag in the sand” analogy.  The flag might be over on one extreme edge of the “taxonspace” (as implied by Paul).  A type anchors a name but does not circumscribe it (except in the narrowest possible sense of the type itself).

In very poorly understood groups (with a high taxon:systematist ratio) the types stand large as outposts in the bleak unwatered and minimally taxonomist-turbed desert.  This seems to be what Stephen was describing in his universe.  As systematics proceeds, the types are still critical to anchor the application of names, but the emphasis shifts to the boundaries between the various flags (types), and which flags are taken over by others and become synonyms of what is regarded as a “good” taxon (not to sound too militaristic).  In the vascular flora of the Southeastern United States, 7200 taxa currently recognized, a very small percentage of taxa are unambiguously circumscribed based on their type alone.  Put another way, the great majority of taxa can only be unambiguously circumscribed by something beyond the name (as typified) because there are sensu stricto or sense lato interpretations “in play”.  If I write “Andropogon virginicus Linnaeus 1753” on a specimen (or a record in a database) without sec or sensu, no one tell whether I mean it in the narrowest sense, or variously including 1, 3, 7, or 12 other taxa recognized in “lumpier” taxonomic schemes currently or in recent decades followed by other credible taxonomic experts.

From: Jim Croft [mailto:jim.croft at gmail.com<mailto:jim.croft at gmail.com>]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 4:36 PM
To: Weakley, Alan
Cc: TAXACOM; Paul van Rijckevorsel

Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

This is not strictly true. The purpose of the type is to anchor the name, as Paul describes. It is not to centre, circumscribe or in any way define the taxon. That is a separate process that may end up including one or more types, and hence one or more names. At least with plants. People may think they are defining a taxon by selecting the 'best' possible type to represent their concept, and it is probably a wise thing to do, but this is not what is happening according to the Code. They are simply anchoring the name.

Jim
On 05/05/2015 5:20 AM, "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu<mailto:weakley at bio.unc.edu>> wrote:
The type is a flag in space around which the circumscription of a taxon (its concept) is defined -- usually in relation to other, "competing" taxa.

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>] On Behalf Of Paul van Rijckevorsel
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 7:57 AM
To: TAXACOM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

I was a little uneasy why Stephen Thorpe's attitude that taxa are defined by types is so alien to me.

But it is very straightforward: from the very first the 'botanical' Code has laid down that nomenclatural types are not necessarily the most typical or representative element of a taxon (that is, holding only the type, it is not possible to predict with any degree of confidence what the taxon exactly looks
like: the type is only the type) .

For plants there does exist a situation where the whole unit is determined by a reference specimen, namely in the ICNCP (Cultivated-plant-Code), resulting in names of the type Hydrangea macrophylla 'La France'.

The ICNCP deals with a field of considerable complexity (and which does benefit from regulation), but taxonomy is not involved.

Paul
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

--
_________________
Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com<mailto:jim.croft at gmail.com> ~ +61-(0)2-62509499 ~ +61 (0)418 675 936 ~ http://about.me/jrc

------------------------------

Message: 11
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 15:43:13 -0700
From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
To: Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>, AlanWeakley <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
Message-ID:
	<1430779393.19293.YahooMailBasic at web160203.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

@Alan: Except that I don't think it is just a function of less taxonomic attention. Many (but by no means all) invertebrates simply can be reliably recognised by matching them up to one (or a just a very few) reference specimens. If anything, problems arise from too much taxonomic attention, whereby taxonomists have to "invent" species in order for it to look like they are really doing anything worthwhile. Cryptic species are like happiness - you can find them just about anywhere if you are of that frame of mind!

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 5/5/15, Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "Jim Croft" <jim.croft at gmail.com>
 Cc: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 10:21 AM

 I carefully circumscribed that
 statement as being relative to vascular plants in the
 Southeastern United States.  Granted:  large parts
 of the taxonomic world (like most invertebrate animal
 groups) are more like the a taxonomic desert I described,
 where types stand large as outposts in the bleak
 unwatered  and minimally  taxonomist-turbed
 concept space.

 It's in some ways a good place to be.  You see
 something different, you name it.  Not so much jostling
 around with inadequately conceptualized OTHER taxa, messy
 old (inadequately typified) names, lumping-splitting
 debates, and the always fun rank (maybe a double meaning
 there) opinions.

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]

 Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 5:58 PM
 To: Weakley, Alan; Jim Croft
 Cc: TAXACOM
 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

 > Put another way, the great majority of taxa can only be
 unambiguously 
 > circumscribed by something beyond the name (as
 typified) because there 
 > are sensu stricto or sense lato interpretations “in
 play”.

 No! Maybe in botany. Not for the majority of species taxa
 overall (which are invertebrate animals). For many (but by
 no means all) of these species, a single specimen is enough
 to be able to recognise them (plus some experience in the
 group, so that one pays attention to likely important
 diagnostic characters). My identification here (http://naturewatch.org.nz/observations/1438142) is a
 good example. I simply compared two images of different
 specimens, and found them to be conspecific with high
 confidence. I knew nothing of the species concerned.

 Stephen

 --------------------------------------------
 On Tue, 5/5/15, Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>
 wrote:

  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
  To: "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
  Cc: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
  Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 9:45 AM

  We are obviously in furious
  agreement. :)

  It wasn't the 'flag in the sand' that caught my
 attention,  but the 'around  which a taxon is
 defined' bit.  It is usually the other  way - a taxon
 is  defined and a type is selected, either from
 existing, or  newly designated  if none exists.

  But we do seem to have a slight difference in approach,
 and  it may be  simply semantic. "a very small
 percentage of taxa are  unambiguously 
 circumscribed based on their type alone" - I don't 
 circumscribe taxa based  on types as such. For the
 purposes of taxonomy, the type is  just another 
 specimen, even if it is the only specimen. When the taxa
 are  sorted, then  the type becomes important. I
 like to draw very clear  distinctions between  the
 acts of taxonomy and nomenclature, and between the
 type  specimen as a  specimen and the type
 specimen as a type. ;)

  jim

  On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
  wrote:

  >  I agree completely with what you say, Jim, and 
 was making the same point  > you ae making – so,
 am not sure what you are  objecting to in my “flag
 in  > the sand” analogy.  The flag might be over
 on  one extreme edge of the  > “taxonspace”
 (as implied by Paul).  A type  anchors a name but does
 not  > circumscribe it (except in the narrowest
 possible sense  of the type itself).
  >
  >
  >
  > In very poorly understood groups (with a high 
 taxon:systematist ratio) the  > types stand large as
 outposts in the bleak unwatered  and minimally 
 > taxonomist-turbed desert.  This seems to be what 
 Stephen was describing in  > his universe.  As
 systematics proceeds, the types  are still critical
 to  > anchor the application of names, but the
 emphasis  shifts to the boundaries  > between
 the various flags (types), and which flags are  taken
 over by others  > and become synonyms of what is
 regarded as a “good”
  taxon (not to sound too
  > militaristic).  In the vascular flora of the 
 Southeastern United States,  > 7200 taxa currently
 recognized, a very small percentage  of taxa are 
 > unambiguously circumscribed based on their type 
 alone.  Put another way,  > the great majority of
 taxa can only be unambiguously  circumscribed by 
 > something beyond the name (as typified) because
 there  are sensu stricto or  > sense lato
 interpretations “in play”.  If I  write
 “Andropogon virginicus  > Linnaeus 1753” on a
 specimen (or a record in a
  database) without sec or
  > sensu, no one tell whether I mean it in the
 narrowest  sense, or variously  > including 1,
 3, 7, or 12 other taxa recognized in  “lumpier”
 taxonomic  > schemes currently or in recent decades
 followed by  other credible taxonomic  >
 experts.
  >
  >
  >
  > *From:* Jim Croft [mailto:jim.croft at gmail.com] 
 > *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 4:36 PM  > *To:*
 Weakley, Alan  > *Cc:* TAXACOM; Paul van
 Rijckevorsel  >  > *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom]
 Why stability? - Revisited  >  > 
 >  > This is not strictly true. The purpose of
 the type is  to anchor the name,  > as Paul
 describes. It is not to centre, circumscribe or  in any
 way define  > the taxon. That is a separate process
 that may end up  including one or more  >
 types, and hence one or more names. At least with 
 plants. People may think  > they are defining a
 taxon by selecting the 'best'
  possible type to
  > represent their concept, and it is probably a
 wise  thing to do, but this is  > not what is
 happening according to the Code. They are  simply
 anchoring the  > name.
  >
  > Jim
  >
  > On 05/05/2015 5:20 AM, "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
  wrote:
  >
  > The type is a flag in space around which the 
 circumscription of a taxon  > (its concept) is
 defined -- usually in relation to  other, "competing"
 taxa.
  >
  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
  On Behalf Of
  > Paul van Rijckevorsel
  > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 7:57 AM
  > To: TAXACOM
  > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? -
 Revisited  >  > I was a little uneasy why
 Stephen Thorpe's attitude  that taxa are defined 
 > by types is so alien to me.
  >
  > But it is very straightforward: from the very first
 the  'botanical' Code  > has laid down that
 nomenclatural types are not  necessarily the most
 typical  > or representative element of a taxon
 (that is, holding  only the type, it is  > not
 possible to predict with any degree of confidence  what
 the taxon  > exactly looks  > like: the type
 is only the type) .
  >
  > For plants there does exist a situation where the
 whole  unit is determined  > by a reference
 specimen, namely in the ICNCP 
 (Cultivated-plant-Code),  > resulting in names of
 the type Hydrangea macrophylla  'La France'.
  >
  > The ICNCP deals with a field of considerable
 complexity  (and which does  > benefit from
 regulation), but taxonomy is not  involved.
  >
  > Paul
  > _______________________________________________
  > Taxacom Mailing List
  > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
  > http://taxacom.markmail.org
  >
  > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
  > _______________________________________________
  > Taxacom Mailing List
  > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
  > http://taxacom.markmail.org
  >
  > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
  >
  >

  --
  _________________
  Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com
  ~ +61-(0)2-62509499 ~ +61 (0)418 675 936 ~  http://about.me/jrc 
 _______________________________________________
  Taxacom Mailing List
  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

  Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

------------------------------

Message: 12
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 18:00:35 -0700
From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
To: 'Jim Croft' <jim.croft at gmail.com>, Alan''Weakley
	<weakley at bio.unc.edu>, deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Cc: 'TAXACOM' <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
Message-ID:
	<1430787635.24649.YahooMailBasic at web160206.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Alternatively, when taxonomists name new species, one of the following circumstances may pertain: 

(1) They base the new species on a single specimen, or several essentially identical specimens;

(2) There is a wide range of variability, in which case they need to circumscribe a concept.

Option (1) is very common.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 5/5/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
 To: "'Jim Croft'" <jim.croft at gmail.com>, "'Weakley, Alan'" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
 Cc: "'TAXACOM'" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 9:45 AM

 The type specimens have one real
 functional role: to help decide which Linnean taxon name to
 apply to a concept.

 When taxonomists define species-level taxon concepts, one of
 three possible circumstances may exist:

 1) The concept circumscription does not include any
 individual organisms that have been designated as a
 name-bearing type for an available/validly-published Linnean
 name;

 2) The concept circumscription includes exactly one organism
 that has been designated as a name-bearing type for an
 available/validly-published Linnean name;

 3) The concept circumscription includes more than one
 organism that has been designated as a name-bearing type for
 an available/validly-published Linnean name.

 In the first circumstance, a taxonomist is prompted to
 select one individual from within the taxon concept
 circumscription to serve as the name-bearing type for a new
 Linnean name.

 In the second circumstance, the epithet associated with the
 single name-bearing type is the one that should be used to
 label the concept (which, among several possibly homotypic
 name combinations to apply is a question of classification,
 no nomenclature).

 In the third circumstance, a taxonomist must consult the
 Codes of nomenclature (and associated materials, such as
 official lists and indexes of works and names) to determine
 which, among the multiple heterotypic names has the highest
 nomenclatural priority, and this the name that should be
 applied to label the concept. These same Codes are used to
 determine which names are available/validly-published, and
 which are not.

 The principle extends to higher-rank names as well, but I
 hope that extension is reasonably evident based on a working
 knowledge of the Codes.

 Aloha,
 Rich

 Richard L. Pyle, PhD
 Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences | Associate
 Zoologist in Ichthyology | Dive Safety Officer
 Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice
 St., Honolulu, HI 96817
 Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252 email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
 http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 On Behalf Of
 > Jim Croft
 > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 10:36 AM
 > To: Weakley, Alan
 > Cc: TAXACOM
 > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
 > 
 > This is not strictly true. The purpose of the type is
 to anchor the name, as Paul
 > describes. It is not to centre, circumscribe or in any
 way define the taxon. That
 > is a separate process that may end up including one or
 more types, and hence
 > one or more names. At least with plants. People may
 think they are defining a
 > taxon by selecting the 'best' possible type to
 represent their concept, and it is
 > probably a wise thing to do, but this is not what is
 happening according to the
 > Code. They are simply anchoring the name.
 > 
 > Jim
 >  On 05/05/2015 5:20 AM, "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
 wrote:
 > 
 > > The type is a flag in space around which the
 circumscription of a
 > > taxon (its concept) is defined -- usually in
 relation to other, "competing" taxa.
 > >
 > > -----Original Message-----
 > > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 On Behalf
 > Of
 > > Paul van Rijckevorsel
 > > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 7:57 AM
 > > To: TAXACOM
 > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
 > >
 > > I was a little uneasy why Stephen Thorpe's
 attitude that taxa are
 > > defined by types is so alien to me.
 > >
 > > But it is very straightforward: from the very
 first the 'botanical'
 > > Code has laid down that nomenclatural types are
 not necessarily the
 > > most typical or representative element of a taxon
 (that is, holding
 > > only the type, it is not possible to predict with
 any degree of
 > > confidence what the taxon exactly looks
 > > like: the type is only the type) .
 > >
 > > For plants there does exist a situation where the
 whole unit is
 > > determined by a reference specimen, namely in the
 ICNCP
 > > (Cultivated-plant-Code), resulting in names of the
 type Hydrangea
 > macrophylla 'La France'.
 > >
 > > The ICNCP deals with a field of considerable
 complexity (and which
 > > does benefit from regulation), but taxonomy is not
 involved.
 > >
 > > Paul
 > > _______________________________________________
 > > Taxacom Mailing List
 > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched
 at:
 > > http://taxacom.markmail.org
 > >
 > > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
 > > _______________________________________________
 > > Taxacom Mailing List
 > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched
 at:
 > > http://taxacom.markmail.org
 > >
 > > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
 > >
 > _______________________________________________
 > Taxacom Mailing List
 > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
 > http://taxacom.markmail.org
 > 
 > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

 Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

------------------------------

Message: 13
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 19:18:45 -0600
From: "Robin Leech" <releech at telus.net>
To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "'Jim Croft'"
	<jim.croft at gmail.com>, "'Alan''Weakley'" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>,
	<deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
Cc: 'TAXACOM' <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
Message-ID: <000001d086d1$6f56f100$4e04d300$@net>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="utf-8"

Stephen, 

You also have to consider males, females, sexual dimorphism and partheogenesis. 
You also have to consider fully pterous, brachypterous and apterous forms within the same 
species and within the same sex.

For example, I am working on a psychid moth that has been introduced to the Nearctic. 
Pterous males and apterous females are found in the Palaearctic, yet apterous, parthenogenetic 
females now exist in the Nearctic.  Which representative do I describe?  Which one is the most 
typical of the species?  

What I have presented is real and not cooked up.

Your call. 

Robin

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: May-04-15 7:01 PM
To: 'Jim Croft'; Alan''Weakley; deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Cc: 'TAXACOM'
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

Alternatively, when taxonomists name new species, one of the following circumstances may pertain: 

(1) They base the new species on a single specimen, or several essentially identical specimens;

(2) There is a wide range of variability, in which case they need to circumscribe a concept.

Option (1) is very common.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 5/5/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
 To: "'Jim Croft'" <jim.croft at gmail.com>, "'Weakley, Alan'" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
 Cc: "'TAXACOM'" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 9:45 AM

 The type specimens have one real
 functional role: to help decide which Linnean taxon name to  apply to a concept.

 When taxonomists define species-level taxon concepts, one of  three possible circumstances may exist:

 1) The concept circumscription does not include any  individual organisms that have been designated as a  name-bearing type for an available/validly-published Linnean  name;

 2) The concept circumscription includes exactly one organism  that has been designated as a name-bearing type for an  available/validly-published Linnean name;

 3) The concept circumscription includes more than one  organism that has been designated as a name-bearing type for  an available/validly-published Linnean name.

 In the first circumstance, a taxonomist is prompted to  select one individual from within the taxon concept  circumscription to serve as the name-bearing type for a new  Linnean name.

 In the second circumstance, the epithet associated with the  single name-bearing type is the one that should be used to  label the concept (which, among several possibly homotypic  name combinations to apply is a question of classification,  no nomenclature).

 In the third circumstance, a taxonomist must consult the  Codes of nomenclature (and associated materials, such as  official lists and indexes of works and names) to determine  which, among the multiple heterotypic names has the highest  nomenclatural priority, and this the name that should be  applied to label the concept. These same Codes are used to  determine which names are available/validly-published, and  which are not.

 The principle extends to higher-rank names as well, but I  hope that extension is reasonably evident based on a working  knowledge of the Codes.

 Aloha,
 Rich

 Richard L. Pyle, PhD
 Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences | Associate  Zoologist in Ichthyology | Dive Safety Officer  Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice  St., Honolulu, HI 96817
 Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252 email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org  http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 On Behalf Of
 > Jim Croft
 > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 10:36 AM
 > To: Weakley, Alan
 > Cc: TAXACOM
 > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited  >  > This is not strictly true. The purpose of the type is  to anchor the name, as Paul  > describes. It is not to centre, circumscribe or in any  way define the taxon. That  > is a separate process that may end up including one or  more types, and hence  > one or more names. At least with plants. People may  think they are defining a  > taxon by selecting the 'best' possible type to  represent their concept, and it is  > probably a wise thing to do, but this is not what is  happening according to the  > Code. They are simply anchoring the name.
 >
 > Jim
 >  On 05/05/2015 5:20 AM, "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
 wrote:
 >
 > > The type is a flag in space around which the  circumscription of a  > > taxon (its concept) is defined -- usually in  relation to other, "competing" taxa.
 > >
 > > -----Original Message-----
 > > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 On Behalf
 > Of
 > > Paul van Rijckevorsel
 > > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 7:57 AM
 > > To: TAXACOM
 > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited  > >  > > I was a little uneasy why Stephen Thorpe's  attitude that taxa are  > > defined by types is so alien to me.
 > >
 > > But it is very straightforward: from the very  first the 'botanical'
 > > Code has laid down that nomenclatural types are  not necessarily the  > > most typical or representative element of a taxon  (that is, holding  > > only the type, it is not possible to predict with  any degree of  > > confidence what the taxon exactly looks  > > like: the type is only the type) .
 > >
 > > For plants there does exist a situation where the  whole unit is  > > determined by a reference specimen, namely in the  ICNCP  > > (Cultivated-plant-Code), resulting in names of the  type Hydrangea  > macrophylla 'La France'.
 > >
 > > The ICNCP deals with a field of considerable  complexity (and which  > > does benefit from regulation), but taxonomy is not  involved.
 > >
 > > Paul
 > > _______________________________________________
 > > Taxacom Mailing List
 > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched
 at:
 > > http://taxacom.markmail.org
 > >
 > > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
 > > _______________________________________________
 > > Taxacom Mailing List
 > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched
 at:
 > > http://taxacom.markmail.org
 > >
 > > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
 > >
 > _______________________________________________
 > Taxacom Mailing List
 > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
 > http://taxacom.markmail.org
 >
 > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

 Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

------------------------------

Message: 14
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 19:15:38 -0700
From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
To: 'Jim Croft' <jim.croft at gmail.com>, 'Alan''Weakley'
	<weakley at bio.unc.edu>,  deepreef at bishopmuseum.org, Robin Leech
	<releech at telus.net>
Cc: 'TAXACOM' <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
Message-ID:
	<1430792138.90315.YahooMailBasic at web160203.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

You don't have to consider that at all for many species. Many original descriptions (even today) are explicitly descriptions of the holotype.

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 5/5/15, Robin Leech <releech at telus.net> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
 To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "'Jim Croft'" <jim.croft at gmail.com>, "'Alan''Weakley'" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>, deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
 Cc: "'TAXACOM'" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 1:18 PM

 Stephen, 

 You also have to consider
 males, females, sexual dimorphism and partheogenesis. 
 You also have to consider fully pterous,
 brachypterous and apterous forms within the same 
 species and within the same sex.

 For example, I am working on a
 psychid moth that has been introduced to the Nearctic. 
 Pterous males and apterous females are found in
 the Palaearctic, yet apterous, parthenogenetic 
 females now exist in the Nearctic.  Which
 representative do I describe?  Which one is the most 
 typical of the species?  

 What I have presented is real and not cooked
 up.

 Your call. 

 Robin

 -----Original
 Message-----
 From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
 Sent: May-04-15
 7:01 PM
 To: 'Jim Croft';
 Alan''Weakley; deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
 Cc: 'TAXACOM'
 Subject:
 Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

 Alternatively, when taxonomists name new
 species, one of the following circumstances may pertain: 

 (1) They base the new species
 on a single specimen, or several essentially identical
 specimens;

 (2) There is a
 wide range of variability, in which case they need to
 circumscribe a concept.

 Option (1) is very common.

 Stephen

 --------------------------------------------
 On Tue, 5/5/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
 wrote:

  Subject: Re:
 [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
  To:
 "'Jim Croft'" <jim.croft at gmail.com>,
 "'Weakley, Alan'" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
  Cc: "'TAXACOM'" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
  Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 9:45 AM

  The type specimens have one
 real
  functional role: to help decide which
 Linnean taxon name to  apply to a concept.

  When taxonomists define species-level
 taxon concepts, one of  three possible circumstances may
 exist:

  1) The concept
 circumscription does not include any  individual organisms
 that have been designated as a  name-bearing type for an
 available/validly-published Linnean  name;

  2) The concept circumscription includes
 exactly one organism  that has been designated as a
 name-bearing type for an  available/validly-published
 Linnean name;

  3) The
 concept circumscription includes more than one  organism
 that has been designated as a name-bearing type for  an
 available/validly-published Linnean name.

  In the first circumstance, a taxonomist is
 prompted to  select one individual from within the taxon
 concept  circumscription to serve as the name-bearing type
 for a new  Linnean name.

 In the second circumstance, the epithet associated with
 the  single name-bearing type is the one that should be
 used to  label the concept (which, among several possibly
 homotypic  name combinations to apply is a question of
 classification,  no nomenclature).

  In the third circumstance, a taxonomist must
 consult the  Codes of nomenclature (and associated
 materials, such as  official lists and indexes of works and
 names) to determine  which, among the multiple heterotypic
 names has the highest  nomenclatural priority, and this the
 name that should be  applied to label the concept. These
 same Codes are used to  determine which names are
 available/validly-published, and  which are not.

  The principle extends to
 higher-rank names as well, but I  hope that extension is
 reasonably evident based on a working  knowledge of the
 Codes.

  Aloha,
  Rich

  Richard L. Pyle, PhD
  Database
 Coordinator for Natural Sciences | Associate  Zoologist in
 Ichthyology | Dive Safety Officer  Department of Natural
 Sciences, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice  St., Honolulu, HI
 96817
  Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
 email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org 
 http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html

  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
  On Behalf Of
  > Jim
 Croft
  > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 10:36
 AM
  > To: Weakley, Alan

 > Cc: TAXACOM
  > Subject: Re:
 [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited  >  > This is
 not strictly true. The purpose of the type is  to anchor
 the name, as Paul  > describes. It is not to centre,
 circumscribe or in any  way define the taxon. That  >
 is a separate process that may end up including one or 
 more types, and hence  > one or more names. At least
 with plants. People may  think they are defining a  >
 taxon by selecting the 'best' possible type to 
 represent their concept, and it is  > probably a wise
 thing to do, but this is not what is  happening according
 to the  > Code. They are simply anchoring the name.
  >
  > Jim
  >  On 05/05/2015 5:20 AM, "Weakley,
 Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
  wrote:
  >

 > > The type is a flag in space around which the 
 circumscription of a  > > taxon (its concept) is
 defined -- usually in  relation to other,
 "competing" taxa.
  > >
  > > -----Original Message-----
  > > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
  On Behalf
  > Of
  > > Paul van Rijckevorsel
  > > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 7:57
 AM
  > > To: TAXACOM

 > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? -
 Revisited  > >  > > I was a little uneasy why
 Stephen Thorpe's  attitude that taxa are  > >
 defined by types is so alien to me.
  >
 >
  > > But it is very
 straightforward: from the very  first the
 'botanical'
  > > Code has laid
 down that nomenclatural types are  not necessarily the 
 > > most typical or representative element of a
 taxon  (that is, holding  > > only the type, it is
 not possible to predict with  any degree of  > >
 confidence what the taxon exactly looks  > > like:
 the type is only the type) .
  > >
  > > For plants there does exist a
 situation where the  whole unit is  > > determined
 by a reference specimen, namely in the  ICNCP  > >
 (Cultivated-plant-Code), resulting in names of the  type
 Hydrangea  > macrophylla 'La France'.
  > >
  > > The ICNCP
 deals with a field of considerable  complexity (and which 
 > > does benefit from regulation), but taxonomy is
 not  involved.
  > >

 > > Paul
  > >
 _______________________________________________
  > > Taxacom Mailing List
  > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may
 be searched
  at:
  > >
 http://taxacom.markmail.org
  > >
  > >
 Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
  >
 > _______________________________________________
  > > Taxacom Mailing List
  > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may
 be searched
  at:
  > >
 http://taxacom.markmail.org
  > >
  > >
 Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

 > >
  >
 _______________________________________________
  > Taxacom Mailing List

 > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at:
  > http://taxacom.markmail.org
  >
  > Celebrating 28
 years of Taxacom in 2015.

 _______________________________________________
  Taxacom Mailing List
  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

  Celebrating 28 years of
 Taxacom in 2015.

 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

 Celebrating 28 years of
 Taxacom in 2015.

------------------------------

Message: 15
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 05:22:36 +0200
From: JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>
To: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
Message-ID:
	<CADQJvRz4sHnrqqAzfowAiBL6-oRDLGp4RTx7c=-ZJRw0WowkhQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

"Cryptic species are like happiness - you can find them just about
anywhere if you are of that frame of mind!...."

"Alternatively, when taxonomists name new species, one of the
following circumstances may pertain:

(1) They base the new species on a single specimen, or several
essentially identical specimens;

(2) There is a wide range of variability, in which case they need to
circumscribe a concept.

Option (1) is very common."

"You don't have to consider that at all for many species. Many
original descriptions (even today) are explicitly descriptions of the
holotype."

Stephen

we all operate on different species concepts based on our needs, our
experience of each group and the state of knowledge of that group. I
agree that for the most part biodiversity fits into your first bin but
as more information is acquired (specimens, populations, biological
information, molecular, karyological...) the species delimitation
becomes tighter and they move to bin 2. This often requires splitting
species into entities that superficially look the same but which are
independent of each other

You may see it as a frame of mind or a desire to overcomplicate things
because, for the most part, you only require a typological concept.
This is probably the concept that the general public (as well as many
professional users of taxonomic data) need. But reality tends to be
more complicated and for those who are ultimately interested in the
"natural history" of particular organisms, additional layers of
information are necessary.

Jason

On 5 May 2015 at 00:43, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> @Alan: Except that I don't think it is just a function of less taxonomic attention. Many (but by no means all) invertebrates simply can be reliably recognised by matching them up to one (or a just a very few) reference specimens. If anything, problems arise from too much taxonomic attention, whereby taxonomists have to "invent" species in order for it to look like they are really doing anything worthwhile. Cryptic species are like happiness - you can find them just about anywhere if you are of that frame of mind!
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 5/5/15, Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>  Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
>  To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "Jim Croft" <jim.croft at gmail.com>
>  Cc: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>  Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 10:21 AM
>
>  I carefully circumscribed that
>  statement as being relative to vascular plants in the
>  Southeastern United States.  Granted:  large parts
>  of the taxonomic world (like most invertebrate animal
>  groups) are more like the a taxonomic desert I described,
>  where types stand large as outposts in the bleak
>  unwatered  and minimally  taxonomist-turbed
>  concept space.
>
>  It's in some ways a good place to be.  You see
>  something different, you name it.  Not so much jostling
>  around with inadequately conceptualized OTHER taxa, messy
>  old (inadequately typified) names, lumping-splitting
>  debates, and the always fun rank (maybe a double meaning
>  there) opinions.
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
>
>  Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 5:58 PM
>  To: Weakley, Alan; Jim Croft
>  Cc: TAXACOM
>  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
>
>  > Put another way, the great majority of taxa can only be
>  unambiguously
>  > circumscribed by something beyond the name (as
>  typified) because there
>  > are sensu stricto or sense lato interpretations “in
>  play”.
>
>  No! Maybe in botany. Not for the majority of species taxa
>  overall (which are invertebrate animals). For many (but by
>  no means all) of these species, a single specimen is enough
>  to be able to recognise them (plus some experience in the
>  group, so that one pays attention to likely important
>  diagnostic characters). My identification here (http://naturewatch.org.nz/observations/1438142) is a
>  good example. I simply compared two images of different
>  specimens, and found them to be conspecific with high
>  confidence. I knew nothing of the species concerned.
>
>  Stephen
>
>
>  --------------------------------------------
>  On Tue, 5/5/15, Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>
>  wrote:
>
>   Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
>   To: "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
>   Cc: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>   Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 9:45 AM
>
>   We are obviously in furious
>   agreement. :)
>
>   It wasn't the 'flag in the sand' that caught my
>  attention,  but the 'around  which a taxon is
>  defined' bit.  It is usually the other  way - a taxon
>  is  defined and a type is selected, either from
>  existing, or  newly designated  if none exists.
>
>   But we do seem to have a slight difference in approach,
>  and  it may be  simply semantic. "a very small
>  percentage of taxa are  unambiguously
>  circumscribed based on their type alone" - I don't
>  circumscribe taxa based  on types as such. For the
>  purposes of taxonomy, the type is  just another
>  specimen, even if it is the only specimen. When the taxa
>  are  sorted, then  the type becomes important. I
>  like to draw very clear  distinctions between  the
>  acts of taxonomy and nomenclature, and between the
>  type  specimen as a  specimen and the type
>  specimen as a type. ;)
>
>   jim
>
>   On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
>   wrote:
>
>   >  I agree completely with what you say, Jim, and
>  was making the same point  > you ae making – so,
>  am not sure what you are  objecting to in my “flag
>  in  > the sand” analogy.  The flag might be over
>  on  one extreme edge of the  > “taxonspace”
>  (as implied by Paul).  A type  anchors a name but does
>  not  > circumscribe it (except in the narrowest
>  possible sense  of the type itself).
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > In very poorly understood groups (with a high
>  taxon:systematist ratio) the  > types stand large as
>  outposts in the bleak unwatered  and minimally
>  > taxonomist-turbed desert.  This seems to be what
>  Stephen was describing in  > his universe.  As
>  systematics proceeds, the types  are still critical
>  to  > anchor the application of names, but the
>  emphasis  shifts to the boundaries  > between
>  the various flags (types), and which flags are  taken
>  over by others  > and become synonyms of what is
>  regarded as a “good”
>   taxon (not to sound too
>   > militaristic).  In the vascular flora of the
>  Southeastern United States,  > 7200 taxa currently
>  recognized, a very small percentage  of taxa are
>  > unambiguously circumscribed based on their type
>  alone.  Put another way,  > the great majority of
>  taxa can only be unambiguously  circumscribed by
>  > something beyond the name (as typified) because
>  there  are sensu stricto or  > sense lato
>  interpretations “in play”.  If I  write
>  “Andropogon virginicus  > Linnaeus 1753” on a
>  specimen (or a record in a
>   database) without sec or
>   > sensu, no one tell whether I mean it in the
>  narrowest  sense, or variously  > including 1,
>  3, 7, or 12 other taxa recognized in  “lumpier”
>  taxonomic  > schemes currently or in recent decades
>  followed by  other credible taxonomic  >
>  experts.
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > *From:* Jim Croft [mailto:jim.croft at gmail.com]
>  > *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 4:36 PM  > *To:*
>  Weakley, Alan  > *Cc:* TAXACOM; Paul van
>  Rijckevorsel  >  > *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom]
>  Why stability? - Revisited  >  >
>  >  > This is not strictly true. The purpose of
>  the type is  to anchor the name,  > as Paul
>  describes. It is not to centre, circumscribe or  in any
>  way define  > the taxon. That is a separate process
>  that may end up  including one or more  >
>  types, and hence one or more names. At least with
>  plants. People may think  > they are defining a
>  taxon by selecting the 'best'
>   possible type to
>   > represent their concept, and it is probably a
>  wise  thing to do, but this is  > not what is
>  happening according to the Code. They are  simply
>  anchoring the  > name.
>   >
>   > Jim
>   >
>   > On 05/05/2015 5:20 AM, "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
>   wrote:
>   >
>   > The type is a flag in space around which the
>  circumscription of a taxon  > (its concept) is
>  defined -- usually in relation to  other, "competing"
>  taxa.
>   >
>   > -----Original Message-----
>   > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
>   On Behalf Of
>   > Paul van Rijckevorsel
>   > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 7:57 AM
>   > To: TAXACOM
>   > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? -
>  Revisited  >  > I was a little uneasy why
>  Stephen Thorpe's attitude  that taxa are defined
>  > by types is so alien to me.
>   >
>   > But it is very straightforward: from the very first
>  the  'botanical' Code  > has laid down that
>  nomenclatural types are not  necessarily the most
>  typical  > or representative element of a taxon
>  (that is, holding  only the type, it is  > not
>  possible to predict with any degree of confidence  what
>  the taxon  > exactly looks  > like: the type
>  is only the type) .
>   >
>   > For plants there does exist a situation where the
>  whole  unit is determined  > by a reference
>  specimen, namely in the ICNCP
>  (Cultivated-plant-Code),  > resulting in names of
>  the type Hydrangea macrophylla  'La France'.
>   >
>   > The ICNCP deals with a field of considerable
>  complexity  (and which does  > benefit from
>  regulation), but taxonomy is not  involved.
>   >
>   > Paul
>   > _______________________________________________
>   > Taxacom Mailing List
>   > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>   > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>   > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>   > http://taxacom.markmail.org
>   >
>   > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
>   > _______________________________________________
>   > Taxacom Mailing List
>   > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>   > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>   > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>   > http://taxacom.markmail.org
>   >
>   > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
>   >
>   >
>
>
>   --
>   _________________
>   Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com
>   ~ +61-(0)2-62509499 ~ +61 (0)418 675 936 ~  http://about.me/jrc
>  _______________________________________________
>   Taxacom Mailing List
>   Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>   http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>   The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>   Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

------------------------------

Message: 16
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 21:28:27 -0600
From: "Robin Leech" <releech at telus.net>
To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "'Jim Croft'"
	<jim.croft at gmail.com>, "'Alan''Weakley'" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>,
	<deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
Cc: 'TAXACOM' <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
Message-ID: <001c01d086e3$8d71fba0$a855f2e0$@net>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"

Stephen,
If only 1 specimen is available, yes, but, if several examples of the same
sex are present, they become paratypes, 
and specimens of the opposite sex, if available, are called . . . . why am I
answering this?
Robin

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz] 
Sent: May-04-15 8:16 PM
To: 'Jim Croft'; 'Alan''Weakley'; deepreef at bishopmuseum.org; Robin Leech
Cc: 'TAXACOM'
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

You don't have to consider that at all for many species. Many original
descriptions (even today) are explicitly descriptions of the holotype.

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 5/5/15, Robin Leech <releech at telus.net> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
 To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "'Jim Croft'"
<jim.croft at gmail.com>, "'Alan''Weakley'" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>,
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
 Cc: "'TAXACOM'" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 1:18 PM

 Stephen, 

 You also have to consider
 males, females, sexual dimorphism and partheogenesis. 
 You also have to consider fully pterous,  brachypterous and apterous forms
within the same  species and within the same sex.

 For example, I am working on a
 psychid moth that has been introduced to the Nearctic. 
 Pterous males and apterous females are found in  the Palaearctic, yet
apterous, parthenogenetic  females now exist in the Nearctic.  Which
representative do I describe?  Which one is the most  typical of the
species?  

 What I have presented is real and not cooked  up.

 Your call. 

 Robin

 -----Original
 Message-----
 From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
 Sent: May-04-15
 7:01 PM
 To: 'Jim Croft';
 Alan''Weakley; deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
 Cc: 'TAXACOM'
 Subject:
 Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

 Alternatively, when taxonomists name new  species, one of the following
circumstances may pertain: 

 (1) They base the new species
 on a single specimen, or several essentially identical  specimens;

 (2) There is a
 wide range of variability, in which case they need to  circumscribe a
concept.

 Option (1) is very common.

 Stephen

 --------------------------------------------
 On Tue, 5/5/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
 wrote:

  Subject: Re:
 [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
  To:
 "'Jim Croft'" <jim.croft at gmail.com>,
 "'Weakley, Alan'" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
  Cc: "'TAXACOM'" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
  Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 9:45 AM

  The type specimens have one
 real
  functional role: to help decide which
 Linnean taxon name to  apply to a concept.

  When taxonomists define species-level
 taxon concepts, one of  three possible circumstances may
 exist:

  1) The concept
 circumscription does not include any  individual organisms  that have been
designated as a  name-bearing type for an  available/validly-published
Linnean  name;

  2) The concept circumscription includes  exactly one organism  that has
been designated as a  name-bearing type for an  available/validly-published
Linnean name;

  3) The
 concept circumscription includes more than one  organism  that has been
designated as a name-bearing type for  an  available/validly-published
Linnean name.

  In the first circumstance, a taxonomist is  prompted to  select one
individual from within the taxon  concept  circumscription to serve as the
name-bearing type  for a new  Linnean name.

 In the second circumstance, the epithet associated with  the  single
name-bearing type is the one that should be  used to  label the concept
(which, among several possibly  homotypic  name combinations to apply is a
question of  classification,  no nomenclature).

  In the third circumstance, a taxonomist must  consult the  Codes of
nomenclature (and associated  materials, such as  official lists and indexes
of works and
 names) to determine  which, among the multiple heterotypic  names has the
highest  nomenclatural priority, and this the  name that should be  applied
to label the concept. These  same Codes are used to  determine which names
are  available/validly-published, and  which are not.

  The principle extends to
 higher-rank names as well, but I  hope that extension is  reasonably
evident based on a working  knowledge of the  Codes.

  Aloha,
  Rich

  Richard L. Pyle, PhD
  Database
 Coordinator for Natural Sciences | Associate  Zoologist in  Ichthyology |
Dive Safety Officer  Department of Natural  Sciences, Bishop Museum, 1525
Bernice  St., Honolulu, HI
 96817
  Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
 email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
 http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html

  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
  On Behalf Of
  > Jim
 Croft
  > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 10:36
 AM
  > To: Weakley, Alan

 > Cc: TAXACOM
  > Subject: Re:
 [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited  >  > This is  not strictly true. The
purpose of the type is  to anchor  the name, as Paul  > describes. It is not
to centre,  circumscribe or in any  way define the taxon. That  >  is a
separate process that may end up including one or  more types, and hence  >
one or more names. At least  with plants. People may  think they are
defining a  >  taxon by selecting the 'best' possible type to  represent
their concept, and it is  > probably a wise  thing to do, but this is not
what is  happening according  to the  > Code. They are simply anchoring the
name.
  >
  > Jim
  >  On 05/05/2015 5:20 AM, "Weakley,
 Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
  wrote:
  >

 > > The type is a flag in space around which the  circumscription of a  > >
taxon (its concept) is  defined -- usually in  relation to other,
"competing" taxa.
  > >
  > > -----Original Message-----
  > > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
  On Behalf
  > Of
  > > Paul van Rijckevorsel
  > > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 7:57
 AM
  > > To: TAXACOM

 > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? -  Revisited  > >  > > I was a
little uneasy why  Stephen Thorpe's  attitude that taxa are  > >  defined by
types is so alien to me.
  >
 >
  > > But it is very
 straightforward: from the very  first the  'botanical'
  > > Code has laid
 down that nomenclatural types are  not necessarily the  > > most typical or
representative element of a  taxon  (that is, holding  > > only the type, it
is  not possible to predict with  any degree of  > >  confidence what the
taxon exactly looks  > > like:
 the type is only the type) .
  > >
  > > For plants there does exist a
 situation where the  whole unit is  > > determined  by a reference
specimen, namely in the  ICNCP  > >  (Cultivated-plant-Code), resulting in
names of the  type  Hydrangea  > macrophylla 'La France'.
  > >
  > > The ICNCP
 deals with a field of considerable  complexity (and which  > > does benefit
from regulation), but taxonomy is  not  involved.
  > >

 > > Paul
  > >
 _______________________________________________
  > > Taxacom Mailing List
  > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may  be searched
  at:
  > >
 http://taxacom.markmail.org
  > >
  > >
 Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
  >
 > _______________________________________________
  > > Taxacom Mailing List
  > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may  be searched
  at:
  > >
 http://taxacom.markmail.org
  > >
  > >
 Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

 > >
  >
 _______________________________________________
  > Taxacom Mailing List

 > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be  searched at:
  > http://taxacom.markmail.org
  >
  > Celebrating 28
 years of Taxacom in 2015.

 _______________________________________________
  Taxacom Mailing List
  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be  searched at:
http://taxacom.markmail.org

  Celebrating 28 years of
 Taxacom in 2015.

 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be  searched at:
http://taxacom.markmail.org

 Celebrating 28 years of
 Taxacom in 2015.

------------------------------

Message: 17
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 20:45:30 -0700
From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
To: 'Jim Croft' <jim.croft at gmail.com>, 'Alan''Weakley'
	<weakley at bio.unc.edu>,  deepreef at bishopmuseum.org, Robin Leech
	<releech at telus.net>
Cc: 'TAXACOM' <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
Message-ID:
	<1430797530.6268.YahooMailBasic at web160203.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

You misunderstand Robin! I know all that, obviously! I was talking about original descriptions involving more than one specimen, but where the description is explicitly of the holotype, typically with some vague additional comment about variation, like "no significant variation"!

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 5/5/15, Robin Leech <releech at telus.net> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
 To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "'Jim Croft'" <jim.croft at gmail.com>, "'Alan''Weakley'" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>, deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
 Cc: "'TAXACOM'" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 3:28 PM

 Stephen,
 If only 1 specimen is available, yes, but, if
 several examples of the same
 sex are
 present, they become paratypes, 
 and
 specimens of the opposite sex, if available, are called . .
 . . why am I
 answering this?
 Robin

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]

 Sent: May-04-15 8:16 PM
 To:
 'Jim Croft'; 'Alan''Weakley'; deepreef at bishopmuseum.org;
 Robin Leech
 Cc: 'TAXACOM'
 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why stability? -
 Revisited

 You don't
 have to consider that at all for many species. Many
 original
 descriptions (even today) are
 explicitly descriptions of the holotype.

 --------------------------------------------
 On Tue, 5/5/15, Robin Leech <releech at telus.net>
 wrote:

  Subject: RE:
 [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
  To:
 "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
 "'Jim Croft'"
 <jim.croft at gmail.com>,
 "'Alan''Weakley'" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>,
 deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
  Cc: "'TAXACOM'" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
  Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 1:18 PM

  Stephen, 

  You also have to consider

 males, females, sexual dimorphism and partheogenesis. 
  You also have to consider fully pterous, 
 brachypterous and apterous forms
 within the
 same  species and within the same sex.

  For example, I am working on a
  psychid moth that has been introduced to the
 Nearctic. 
  Pterous males and apterous
 females are found in  the Palaearctic, yet
 apterous, parthenogenetic  females now exist
 in the Nearctic.  Which
 representative do I
 describe?  Which one is the most  typical of the
 species?  

 What I have presented is real and not cooked  up.

  Your call. 

  Robin

  -----Original
  Message-----
  From: Taxacom
 [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
  On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe

 Sent: May-04-15
  7:01 PM

 To: 'Jim Croft';

 Alan''Weakley; deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
  Cc: 'TAXACOM'

 Subject:
  Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? -
 Revisited

  Alternatively,
 when taxonomists name new  species, one of the following
 circumstances may pertain: 

  (1) They base the new species
  on a single specimen, or several essentially
 identical  specimens;

 (2) There is a
  wide range of variability,
 in which case they need to  circumscribe a
 concept.

 Option (1) is very common.

  Stephen

 --------------------------------------------
  On Tue, 5/5/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
  wrote:

 Subject: Re:
  [Taxacom] Why stability? -
 Revisited
   To:

 "'Jim Croft'" <jim.croft at gmail.com>,
  "'Weakley, Alan'" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
   Cc: "'TAXACOM'" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
   Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 9:45 AM

   The type specimens have
 one
  real
   functional
 role: to help decide which
  Linnean taxon
 name to  apply to a concept.

   When taxonomists define
 species-level
  taxon concepts, one of 
 three possible circumstances may
  exist:

   1) The concept
  circumscription does not include any 
 individual organisms  that have been
 designated as a  name-bearing type for an 
 available/validly-published
 Linnean 
 name;

 2) The concept circumscription includes  exactly one
 organism  that has
 been designated as a 
 name-bearing type for an  available/validly-published
 Linnean name;

   3) The
  concept
 circumscription includes more than one  organism  that has
 been
 designated as a name-bearing type for 
 an  available/validly-published
 Linnean
 name.

 In the first circumstance, a taxonomist is  prompted to 
 select one
 individual from within the
 taxon  concept  circumscription to serve as the
 name-bearing type  for a new  Linnean
 name.

 In the second circumstance, the epithet associated with 
 the  single
 name-bearing type is the one
 that should be  used to  label the concept
 (which, among several possibly  homotypic 
 name combinations to apply is a
 question
 of  classification,  no nomenclature).

   In the third circumstance, a taxonomist
 must  consult the  Codes of
 nomenclature
 (and associated  materials, such as  official lists and
 indexes
 of works and
  names)
 to determine  which, among the multiple heterotypic  names
 has the
 highest  nomenclatural priority,
 and this the  name that should be  applied
 to label the concept. These  same Codes are
 used to  determine which names
 are 
 available/validly-published, and  which are not.

   The principle extends
 to
  higher-rank names as well, but I  hope
 that extension is  reasonably
 evident based
 on a working  knowledge of the  Codes.

   Aloha,
   Rich

 Richard L. Pyle, PhD
   Database
  Coordinator for Natural Sciences | Associate 
 Zoologist in  Ichthyology |
 Dive Safety
 Officer  Department of Natural  Sciences, Bishop Museum,
 1525
 Bernice  St., Honolulu, HI
  96817
   Ph: (808)848-4115,
 Fax: (808)847-8252
  email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
  http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html

   > -----Original Message-----
   > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
   On Behalf Of
   > Jim
  Croft
   > Sent: Monday,
 May 04, 2015 10:36
  AM

 > To: Weakley, Alan

 > Cc: TAXACOM
   > Subject: Re:
  [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited  > 
 > This is  not strictly true. The
 purpose of the type is  to anchor  the name,
 as Paul  > describes. It is not
 to
 centre,  circumscribe or in any  way define the taxon.
 That  >  is a
 separate process that may
 end up including one or  more types, and hence  >
 one or more names. At least  with plants.
 People may  think they are
 defining a 
 >  taxon by selecting the 'best' possible type
 to  represent
 their concept, and it is 
 > probably a wise  thing to do, but this is not
 what is  happening according  to the  >
 Code. They are simply anchoring the
 name.
   >
   > Jim
   >  On 05/05/2015 5:20 AM,
 "Weakley,
  Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
   wrote:
   >

  > > The type is a flag
 in space around which the  circumscription of a  >
 >
 taxon (its concept) is  defined --
 usually in  relation to other,
 "competing" taxa.

 > >
   > > -----Original
 Message-----
   > > From: Taxacom
 [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
   On Behalf
   > Of
   > > Paul van Rijckevorsel
   > > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 7:57
  AM
   > > To: TAXACOM

  > > Subject: Re:
 [Taxacom] Why stability? -  Revisited  > >  >
 > I was a
 little uneasy why  Stephen
 Thorpe's  attitude that taxa are  > >  defined
 by
 types is so alien to me.
   >
  >
   > > But it is very

 straightforward: from the very  first the 
 'botanical'
   > > Code has
 laid
  down that nomenclatural types are 
 not necessarily the  > > most typical or
 representative element of a  taxon  (that is,
 holding  > > only the type, it
 is 
 not possible to predict with  any degree of  > > 
 confidence what the
 taxon exactly looks 
 > > like:
  the type is only the type)
 .
   > >
   > >
 For plants there does exist a
  situation
 where the  whole unit is  > > determined  by a
 reference
 specimen, namely in the  ICNCP 
 > >  (Cultivated-plant-Code), resulting in
 names of the  type  Hydrangea  >
 macrophylla 'La France'.
   >
 >
   > > The ICNCP

 deals with a field of considerable  complexity (and which 
 > > does benefit
 from regulation), but
 taxonomy is  not  involved.
   >
 >

  > > Paul
   > >

 _______________________________________________
   > > Taxacom Mailing List
   > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
   > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
   > > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992
 may  be searched
   at:

 > >
  http://taxacom.markmail.org
   > >
   > >
  Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
   >
  >
 _______________________________________________
   > > Taxacom Mailing List
   > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
   > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
   > > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992
 may  be searched
   at:

 > >
  http://taxacom.markmail.org
   > >
   > >
  Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

  > >

 >

 _______________________________________________
   > Taxacom Mailing List

  > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
   > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
   > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may
 be  searched at:
   > http://taxacom.markmail.org
   >
   > Celebrating
 28
  years of Taxacom in 2015.

 _______________________________________________
   Taxacom Mailing List
   Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
   http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
   The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be 
 searched at:
 http://taxacom.markmail.org

   Celebrating 28 years
 of
  Taxacom in 2015.

 _______________________________________________
  Taxacom Mailing List
  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be 
 searched at:
 http://taxacom.markmail.org

  Celebrating 28 years of
  Taxacom in 2015.

------------------------------

Message: 18
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 20:53:59 -0700
From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
To: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, JF Mate
	<aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
Message-ID:
	<1430798039.56341.YahooMailBasic at web160202.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

@Jason: You (and others) are misattributing to me simplistic meanings which are not mine! This is getting further and further away from the original point, which was that there is no need to cite "species circumscriptions/concepts" across the board because it would create too much redundancy (i.e. too much Aus bus Smith, 1900 sensu Smith 1900). Species of many groups of organisms will never need to get to the stage of your "bin 2". For many (but by no means all) beetle species, for example, all you need is an image of the male genitalia, and that is the end of it. If the species was described without examination of the genitalia, then the name means nothing until the holotype (hopefully a male) is dissected.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 5/5/15, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
 To: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 3:22 PM

 "Cryptic species are like happiness -
 you can find them just about
 anywhere if you are of that frame of mind!...."

 "Alternatively, when taxonomists name new species, one of
 the
 following circumstances may pertain:

 (1) They base the new species on a single specimen, or
 several
 essentially identical specimens;

 (2) There is a wide range of variability, in which case they
 need to
 circumscribe a concept.

 Option (1) is very common."

 "You don't have to consider that at all for many species.
 Many
 original descriptions (even today) are explicitly
 descriptions of the
 holotype."

 Stephen

 we all operate on different species concepts based on our
 needs, our
 experience of each group and the state of knowledge of that
 group. I
 agree that for the most part biodiversity fits into your
 first bin but
 as more information is acquired (specimens, populations,
 biological
 information, molecular, karyological...) the species
 delimitation
 becomes tighter and they move to bin 2. This often requires
 splitting
 species into entities that superficially look the same but
 which are
 independent of each other

 You may see it as a frame of mind or a desire to
 overcomplicate things
 because, for the most part, you only require a typological
 concept.
 This is probably the concept that the general public (as
 well as many
 professional users of taxonomic data) need. But reality
 tends to be
 more complicated and for those who are ultimately interested
 in the
 "natural history" of particular organisms, additional layers
 of
 information are necessary.

 Jason

 On 5 May 2015 at 00:43, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 wrote:
 > @Alan: Except that I don't think it is just a function
 of less taxonomic attention. Many (but by no means all)
 invertebrates simply can be reliably recognised by matching
 them up to one (or a just a very few) reference specimens.
 If anything, problems arise from too much taxonomic
 attention, whereby taxonomists have to "invent" species in
 order for it to look like they are really doing anything
 worthwhile. Cryptic species are like happiness - you can
 find them just about anywhere if you are of that frame of
 mind!
 >
 > Stephen
 >
 > --------------------------------------------
 > On Tue, 5/5/15, Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
 wrote:
 >
 >  Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why stability? -
 Revisited
 >  To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
 "Jim Croft" <jim.croft at gmail.com>
 >  Cc: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 >  Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 10:21 AM
 >
 >  I carefully circumscribed that
 >  statement as being relative to vascular plants in
 the
 >  Southeastern United States.  Granted: 
 large parts
 >  of the taxonomic world (like most invertebrate
 animal
 >  groups) are more like the a taxonomic desert I
 described,
 >  where types stand large as outposts in the bleak
 >  unwatered  and minimally 
 taxonomist-turbed
 >  concept space.
 >
 >  It's in some ways a good place to be.  You
 see
 >  something different, you name it.  Not so
 much jostling
 >  around with inadequately conceptualized OTHER
 taxa, messy
 >  old (inadequately typified) names,
 lumping-splitting
 >  debates, and the always fun rank (maybe a double
 meaning
 >  there) opinions.
 >
 >
 >  -----Original Message-----
 >  From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
 >
 >  Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 5:58 PM
 >  To: Weakley, Alan; Jim Croft
 >  Cc: TAXACOM
 >  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? -
 Revisited
 >
 >  > Put another way, the great majority of taxa
 can only be
 >  unambiguously
 >  > circumscribed by something beyond the name
 (as
 >  typified) because there
 >  > are sensu stricto or sense lato
 interpretations “in
 >  play”.
 >
 >  No! Maybe in botany. Not for the majority of
 species taxa
 >  overall (which are invertebrate animals). For
 many (but by
 >  no means all) of these species, a single specimen
 is enough
 >  to be able to recognise them (plus some
 experience in the
 >  group, so that one pays attention to likely
 important
 >  diagnostic characters). My identification here
 (http://naturewatch.org.nz/observations/1438142) is a
 >  good example. I simply compared two images of
 different
 >  specimens, and found them to be conspecific with
 high
 >  confidence. I knew nothing of the species
 concerned.
 >
 >  Stephen
 >
 >
 >  --------------------------------------------
 >  On Tue, 5/5/15, Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>
 >  wrote:
 >
 >   Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability?
 - Revisited
 >   To: "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
 >   Cc: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 >   Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 9:45
 AM
 >
 >   We are obviously in furious
 >   agreement. :)
 >
 >   It wasn't the 'flag in the sand' that
 caught my
 >  attention,  but the 'around  which a
 taxon is
 >  defined' bit.  It is usually the other 
 way - a taxon
 >  is  defined and a type is selected, either
 from
 >  existing, or  newly designated  if none
 exists.
 >
 >   But we do seem to have a slight
 difference in approach,
 >  and  it may be  simply semantic. "a
 very small
 >  percentage of taxa are  unambiguously
 >  circumscribed based on their type alone" - I
 don't
 >  circumscribe taxa based  on types as such.
 For the
 >  purposes of taxonomy, the type is  just
 another
 >  specimen, even if it is the only specimen. When
 the taxa
 >  are  sorted, then  the type becomes
 important. I
 >  like to draw very clear  distinctions
 between  the
 >  acts of taxonomy and nomenclature, and between
 the
 >  type  specimen as a  specimen and the
 type
 >  specimen as a type. ;)
 >
 >   jim
 >
 >   On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:58 AM,
 Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
 >   wrote:
 >
 >   >  I agree completely with
 what you say, Jim, and
 >  was making the same point  > you ae
 making – so,
 >  am not sure what you are  objecting to in my
 “flag
 >  in  > the sand” analogy.  The flag
 might be over
 >  on  one extreme edge of the  >
 “taxonspace”
 >  (as implied by Paul).  A type  anchors
 a name but does
 >  not  > circumscribe it (except in the
 narrowest
 >  possible sense  of the type itself).
 >   >
 >   >
 >   >
 >   > In very poorly understood groups
 (with a high
 >  taxon:systematist ratio) the  > types
 stand large as
 >  outposts in the bleak unwatered  and
 minimally
 >  > taxonomist-turbed desert.  This seems
 to be what
 >  Stephen was describing in  > his
 universe.  As
 >  systematics proceeds, the types  are still
 critical
 >  to  > anchor the application of names,
 but the
 >  emphasis  shifts to the boundaries 
 > between
 >  the various flags (types), and which flags
 are  taken
 >  over by others  > and become synonyms of
 what is
 >  regarded as a “good”
 >   taxon (not to sound too
 >   > militaristic).  In the
 vascular flora of the
 >  Southeastern United States,  > 7200 taxa
 currently
 >  recognized, a very small percentage  of taxa
 are
 >  > unambiguously circumscribed based on their
 type
 >  alone.  Put another way,  > the
 great majority of
 >  taxa can only be unambiguously 
 circumscribed by
 >  > something beyond the name (as typified)
 because
 >  there  are sensu stricto or  > sense
 lato
 >  interpretations “in play”.  If I 
 write
 >  “Andropogon virginicus  > Linnaeus
 1753” on a
 >  specimen (or a record in a
 >   database) without sec or
 >   > sensu, no one tell whether I mean
 it in the
 >  narrowest  sense, or variously  >
 including 1,
 >  3, 7, or 12 other taxa recognized in 
 “lumpier”
 >  taxonomic  > schemes currently or in
 recent decades
 >  followed by  other credible taxonomic 
 >
 >  experts.
 >   >
 >   >
 >   >
 >   > *From:* Jim Croft [mailto:jim.croft at gmail.com]
 >  > *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 4:36 PM 
 > *To:*
 >  Weakley, Alan  > *Cc:* TAXACOM; Paul van
 >  Rijckevorsel  >  > *Subject:* Re:
 [Taxacom]
 >  Why stability? - Revisited  >  >
 >  >  > This is not strictly true. The
 purpose of
 >  the type is  to anchor the name,  >
 as Paul
 >  describes. It is not to centre, circumscribe
 or  in any
 >  way define  > the taxon. That is a
 separate process
 >  that may end up  including one or more 
 >
 >  types, and hence one or more names. At least
 with
 >  plants. People may think  > they are
 defining a
 >  taxon by selecting the 'best'
 >   possible type to
 >   > represent their concept, and it
 is probably a
 >  wise  thing to do, but this is  >
 not what is
 >  happening according to the Code. They are 
 simply
 >  anchoring the  > name.
 >   >
 >   > Jim
 >   >
 >   > On 05/05/2015 5:20 AM, "Weakley,
 Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
 >   wrote:
 >   >
 >   > The type is a flag in space
 around which the
 >  circumscription of a taxon  > (its
 concept) is
 >  defined -- usually in relation to  other,
 "competing"
 >  taxa.
 >   >
 >   > -----Original Message-----
 >   > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 >   On Behalf Of
 >   > Paul van Rijckevorsel
 >   > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 7:57
 AM
 >   > To: TAXACOM
 >   > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why
 stability? -
 >  Revisited  >  > I was a little
 uneasy why
 >  Stephen Thorpe's attitude  that taxa are
 defined
 >  > by types is so alien to me.
 >   >
 >   > But it is very straightforward:
 from the very first
 >  the  'botanical' Code  > has laid
 down that
 >  nomenclatural types are not  necessarily the
 most
 >  typical  > or representative element of a
 taxon
 >  (that is, holding  only the type, it
 is  > not
 >  possible to predict with any degree of
 confidence  what
 >  the taxon  > exactly looks  >
 like: the type
 >  is only the type) .
 >   >
 >   > For plants there does exist a
 situation where the
 >  whole  unit is determined  > by a
 reference
 >  specimen, namely in the ICNCP
 >  (Cultivated-plant-Code),  > resulting in
 names of
 >  the type Hydrangea macrophylla  'La
 France'.
 >   >
 >   > The ICNCP deals with a field of
 considerable
 >  complexity  (and which does  >
 benefit from
 >  regulation), but taxonomy is not  involved.
 >   >
 >   > Paul
 >   >
 _______________________________________________
 >   > Taxacom Mailing List
 >   > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 >   > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 >   > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992
 may be searched at:
 >   > http://taxacom.markmail.org
 >   >
 >   > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom
 in 2015.
 >   >
 _______________________________________________
 >   > Taxacom Mailing List
 >   > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 >   > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 >   > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992
 may be searched at:
 >   > http://taxacom.markmail.org
 >   >
 >   > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom
 in 2015.
 >   >
 >   >
 >
 >
 >   --
 >   _________________
 >   Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com
 >   ~ +61-(0)2-62509499 ~ +61 (0)418 675
 936 ~  http://about.me/jrc
 >  _______________________________________________
 >   Taxacom Mailing List
 >   Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 >   http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 >   The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may
 be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 >
 >   Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in
 2015.
 >
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > Taxacom Mailing List
 > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 >
 > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

 Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

------------------------------

Message: 19
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 08:46:22 +0000
From: John Noyes <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>
To: 'Stephen Thorpe' <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, AlanWeakley
	<weakley at bio.unc.edu>, TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, Roderic
	Page <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
Cc: Nico Franz <nico.franz at asu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
Message-ID:
	<AA5BE17C92027644B3EB4875EE77D33DF460BC3D at EXC-JONES.nhm.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Even more disturbing is that in many institutions taxonomists are being told they are not required to do descriptive taxonomy because must give priority to obtaining funding for their continued existence. In this case even smaller articles are discouraged.

John

John Noyes
Scientific Associate
Department of Life Sciences
Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
South Kensington
London SW7 5BD 
UK
jsn at nhm.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594
Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942 5229

Universal Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know about chalcidoids and more):
www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids 

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: 01 May 2015 23:07
To: AlanWeakley; TAXACOM; Roderic Page
Cc: Nico Franz
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

One increasingly disturbing aspect, which is very apparent in this neck of the woods lately, is that instead of opting for large monographic revisions, taxonomists are now under "citation pressure" to split what could and should be one large work up into a number of smaller articles.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 2/5/15, Roderic Page <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
 To: "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>, "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Cc: "Nico Franz" <nico.franz at asu.edu>
 Received: Saturday, 2 May, 2015, 6:14 AM

 Hi Alan,

 The comment about
 "munging" (not even sure if that's a word,  I'm a Kiwi by the way) was specific to Avibase, where it  takes multiple checklists (each may have several versions,  so there is a lot of self similarity) and synthesising  them.

 I'm not denying
 that this is valuable, but it frustrates me that there is  minimal connection to the underlying literature. What I see  missing from many checklists, and aggregators as well, is  the ability to drill down to the underlying science.

 Rod

 Sent from my
 iPhone

 On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:55 AM -0700,
 "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu<mailto:weakley at bio.unc.edu>>
 wrote:

 While I will have a
 more detailed and lengthy response later (when I have time),  here's a quicky:

 One
 has to love the brilliant ;-) pejorative Britishism  "it's just munging together checklists".
 ;-)

 All taxonomy work
 should be based on the most thorough, careful, and expert  science possible (monographs and their like).  Most  taxonomic work is then translated to a broader set of  scientific users via (in the vascular plant world) Floras  and other, more practical "field guides" -- for at  least the more conspicuous organism groups; admittedly it  helps if you are a vertebrate animal, a charismatic  invertebrate (like Lepidoptera, Odonata, Hymenoptera), or a  vascular plant.  The set of users of a monograph is in the  10s (maybe the 100s for EVEN a bird or mammal monograph).  The set of users of a Flora or regional Field Guide to an  animal group is in the 10,000s.  The set of users of a  website is in the 1,000,000s.  It is only by dealing  effectively with ambiguities between taxonomy and  nomenclature that we go from 10's to 1,000,000s with  accuracy and real meaning.  Don't you want the best  information used (for ongoing scientific work, for  conservation, for ecological studies, for citizen science,  for ____)?

 So, let me offer
 a provocative translation here:  "it's just  munging together checklists" --> "it's just  making the best, current, taxonomically accurate information  accessible to the broad set of users who need it".

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 On Behalf Of Roderic Page
 Sent: Friday, May
 01, 2015 1:10 PM
 To: TAXACOM
 Cc: Nico Franz
 Subject: Re:
 [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

 Hi Nico,

 Just
 to play devils advocate, as much as Avibase is an impressive  achievement (I’m playing with some data from it right  now), at the end of the day it’s basically munging  together checklists. There’s no evidence base that we can  access, we are essentially combining opinions on what  species or subspecies go where. Some of these checklists are  literally just lists of names, representing somebody’s -  no doubt considered - opinion, whereas I’d really like to  see why someone thinks two taxa are synonyms, or one species  should be split into two, etc. What is the, you know, actual  evidence?

 I believe that,
 if an individual produces a monograph that has well defined  reference boundaries - a domain of reference, so to speak  (this perceived taxon, at this time, in that region, given  this nomenclatural and taxonomic legacy, these sets of  specimens, traits, inferred trees, etc.) - and that  monograph gets aggregated into a larger biodiversity  information environment, then in that environment the  identity of the monographic content should remain  "relevantly recognizable". The aggregator  environment does in effect expand the monograph's  original domain of reference in ways that the  monograph's author cannot readily or reliably  predict.

 …

 This will sound a bit
 dramatic, but many aggregator systems are currently  structurally designed in a way that the graduate student,  postdoc, or more senior scientist producing a monograph is  inadvertently disenfranchised when their taxonomic language  contribution migrates from the traditional to the  integrative publication environment.

 I find the notion that monographs are
 monolithic entities with boundaries to be respected to be a  little last century ;) I would like traceability of  evidence, but this doesn’t require a monograph as such. We  could have single, citable assertions (say, equivalent to a  single paper that shows what was thought to be a new species  was actually simply the male of a known species), or we  could have a set of assertions, each individually  identifiable but all clustered as coming from the same  monograph. In other words, nano publications, which may be  aggregated into larger sets if desired. I suspect this is  the way a lot of data curation subjects, such as taxonomy,  are going to be heading in.

 As always there seems to be a tension between  doing things the way we always have, albeit using new  technology, or using new technology to rethink they way we  do things. I don’t mean it as pejoratively as that sounds
 - new isn’t always necessarily better, but I think we are  missing opportunities to rethink the way we do things.

 Regards

 Rod

 ---------------------------------------------------------
 Roderic Page
 Professor of
 Taxonomy
 Institute of Biodiversity, Animal
 Health and Comparative Medicine College of Medical,  Veterinary and Life Sciences Graham Kerr Building University  of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK

 Email:  Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
 Tel:  +44 141 330 4778
 Skype:  rdmpage
 Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/rdmpage
 LinkedIn:  http://uk.linkedin.com/in/rdmpage
 Twitter:  http://twitter.com/rdmpage
 Blog:  http://iphylo.blogspot.com
 ORCID:  http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-9767
 Citations:  http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=4Z5WABAAAAAJ
 ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roderic_Page

 On 1 May
 2015, at 16:22, Nico Franz <nico.franz at asu.edu<mailto:nico.franz at asu.edu>>
 wrote:

 Thanks, Rod (and
 Tony).

    Also
 for steering things back a bit.

    I believe that, if an individual
 produces a monograph that has well defined reference  boundaries - a domain of reference, so to speak (this  perceived taxon, at this time, in that region, given this  nomenclatural and taxonomic legacy, these sets of specimens,  traits, inferred trees, etc.) - and that monograph gets  aggregated into a larger biodiversity information  environment, then in that environment the identity of the  monographic content should remain "relevantly  recognizable". The aggregator environment does in  effect expand the monograph's original domain of  reference in ways that the monograph's author cannot  readily or reliably predict.

    To me his puts the onus on the
 aggregator environment to provide technical design solutions  that are capable of supporting the communication and social  recognition models that human taxonomy making and revising  relies on.

    Where do taxonomic concepts fit
 in here? We have, at this point, some individual efforts  (two absolute stand-outs to me are Lepage's Avibase [http://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=3906]
 and Weakley's Flora [http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm])
 that demonstrate at considerable scales (thousands of  currently recognized species concepts, > one century  taxonomy legacy depth, tens of thousands to millions of
 articulations) that taxonomic concept individuation and  integration based on semantics that complement nomenclatural  relationships is feasible. Avibase in particular implements  a database to sustain these reference services.

    I think a fair
 and contemporary assessment is, as we move to greater, more  integrative scales, there will be issues that we have not  fully grasped yet, and other issues that we can already  identify and which will be hard. For instance, I understand  that Avibase uses taxonomic names at the family level and  above, while shifting to taxonomic concept resolution at  lower levels. But we also do have a small but growing body  of theory and practice that shows feasibility and value, to  my mind. Worthy of praise perhaps, and further  exploration.

    The following is in my view a
 persistent challenge to the aggregators. When we initially  build these larger biodiversity data repositories with  successively more encompassing taxonomies whose intellectual  authorship origins are diverse, and then curate the  taxonomies in the new environments as we go along, we are in  some sense generating new systematic theories intended to  reflect reference standards for a wide range of contributors  and users.

 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13752-012-0049-z

    But who owns the
 new theories, or identifiable parts of them? Who can express  their assessments of their validity, or perceived need for  correction or expansion? This will sound a bit dramatic, but  many aggregator systems are currently structurally designed  in a way that the graduate student, postdoc, or more senior  scientist producing a monograph is inadvertently  disenfranchised when their taxonomic language contribution  migrates from the traditional to the integrative publication  environment.

    So, yes, we do not have it all
 figured out. Maybe it won't work in the end for very  many important applications. We are also not alone in  this.

 http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-84628-901-9_8

 Cheers, Nico

 On Fri, May
 1, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Roderic Page <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>>
 wrote:
 Hi Nico,

 To return to you’re original post and
 question, a couple of quick comments.

 As Stephen Thorpe alluded to, once aspect of  instability is IMHO a function of the burden taxonomic names  carry. We would like:

 1.
 human readable, globally unique names, that

 2. also tell us something
 about relationships (e.g. the genus name matters), and

 3. carry some link to
 provenance (e.g., taxonomic authority, author for new  combinations, etc.)

 There’s pretty much no way to satisfy these  requirements without tradeoffs of one sort or another. For  example, for reasons that I’ve now forgotten I thought it  would be fun to try and track down the original species  descriptions associated with a recent paper on the declining  rate of descriptions of new bird species ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syu069,
 see also http://eol.org/collections/116394 ). Cue  much heartache as many of these names have changed, and  often discovering the original name (and publication) is a  world of hurt as people shuffle species between genera and  up and down between species and subspecies rank (e.g., http://bionames.org/names/cluster/642623
 ).

 We have a naming
 system that is hugely unstable because goals 1 and 2 are  incompatible (at least, they are in the absence of any  system to track name changes, botanists do this quite well,  zoologists don’t).

 Regarding your bigger point about your
 “extreme” system, I think this is kind of where we are  heading, especially when you think of things like DNA  barcoding. However, I suspect that what people will focus on  is not the long history of shuffling specimens between names  and taxa, but what the latest snap shot is "right  now". Databases that make this explicit (GBIF - taxa as  sets of occurrences, NCBI and BOLD - taxa as sets of
 sequences) will be useful and underpin actual research.
 Databases that make this implicit (i.e., most taxonomic
 databases) will be a lot less useful.

 I love the taxonomic legacy as much as anyone,  indeed I spend most of my time trying to expose it as much  as possible (hence http://biostor.org<http://biostor.org/> and http://bionames.org<http://bionames.org/> ), but I  suspect a lot of discussion about the relationship between  concepts will be of perhaps limited relevance except in some  (possibly spectacular) edges cases.

 Regards

 Rod

 ---------------------------------------------------------
 Roderic Page
 Professor of
 Taxonomy
 Institute of Biodiversity, Animal
 Health and Comparative Medicine College of Medical,  Veterinary and Life Sciences Graham Kerr Building University  of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK

 Email:  Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
 Tel:  +44 141 330
 4778<tel:%2B44%20141%20330%204778>
 Skype:  rdmpage
 Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/rdmpage
 LinkedIn:  http://uk.linkedin.com/in/rdmpage
 Twitter:  http://twitter.com/rdmpage
 Blog:  http://iphylo.blogspot.com<http://iphylo.blogspot.com/>
 ORCID:  http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-9767
 Citations:  http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=4Z5WABAAAAAJ
 ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roderic_Page

 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be  searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

 Celebrating 28 years of
 Taxacom in 2015.
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be  searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

 Celebrating 28 years of
 Taxacom in 2015.

_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

------------------------------

Message: 20
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 15:37:54 +0000
From: Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
To: JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>, Taxacom
	<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
Message-ID:
	<9420D160C57A854B9C3084F64FC3AE9FEC387BE2 at MBGMail02.mobot.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Taxonomists name new species based on few or one collection by comparing degree of difference from known species. If the new species is sufficiently different that it probably has the traits of a species (whatever concept is current for the group), that justifies the name. 

In the past, species were poorly known (as evolutionarily coherent groups of individuals), and such comparison was difficult, hence lots of synonymy. Today, naming a species from one or a few specimens is far more likely to produce a valid taxon.

-------
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden – 4344 Shaw Blvd. – St. Louis – Missouri – 63110 – USA
richard.zander at mobot.org 
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ 

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of JF Mate
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 10:23 PM
To: Taxacom
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

"Cryptic species are like happiness - you can find them just about anywhere if you are of that frame of mind!...."

"Alternatively, when taxonomists name new species, one of the following circumstances may pertain:

(1) They base the new species on a single specimen, or several essentially identical specimens;

(2) There is a wide range of variability, in which case they need to circumscribe a concept.

Option (1) is very common."

"You don't have to consider that at all for many species. Many original descriptions (even today) are explicitly descriptions of the holotype."

Stephen

we all operate on different species concepts based on our needs, our experience of each group and the state of knowledge of that group. I agree that for the most part biodiversity fits into your first bin but as more information is acquired (specimens, populations, biological information, molecular, karyological...) the species delimitation becomes tighter and they move to bin 2. This often requires splitting species into entities that superficially look the same but which are independent of each other

You may see it as a frame of mind or a desire to overcomplicate things because, for the most part, you only require a typological concept.
This is probably the concept that the general public (as well as many professional users of taxonomic data) need. But reality tends to be more complicated and for those who are ultimately interested in the "natural history" of particular organisms, additional layers of information are necessary.

Jason

On 5 May 2015 at 00:43, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> @Alan: Except that I don't think it is just a function of less taxonomic attention. Many (but by no means all) invertebrates simply can be reliably recognised by matching them up to one (or a just a very few) reference specimens. If anything, problems arise from too much taxonomic attention, whereby taxonomists have to "invent" species in order for it to look like they are really doing anything worthwhile. Cryptic species are like happiness - you can find them just about anywhere if you are of that frame of mind!
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 5/5/15, Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>  Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
>  To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "Jim Croft" 
> <jim.croft at gmail.com>
>  Cc: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>  Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 10:21 AM
>
>  I carefully circumscribed that
>  statement as being relative to vascular plants in the  Southeastern 
> United States.  Granted:  large parts  of the taxonomic world (like 
> most invertebrate animal
>  groups) are more like the a taxonomic desert I described,  where 
> types stand large as outposts in the bleak  unwatered  and minimally  
> taxonomist-turbed  concept space.
>
>  It's in some ways a good place to be.  You see  something different, 
> you name it.  Not so much jostling  around with inadequately 
> conceptualized OTHER taxa, messy  old (inadequately typified) names, 
> lumping-splitting  debates, and the always fun rank (maybe a double 
> meaning
>  there) opinions.
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
>
>  Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 5:58 PM
>  To: Weakley, Alan; Jim Croft
>  Cc: TAXACOM
>  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
>
>  > Put another way, the great majority of taxa can only be  
> unambiguously  > circumscribed by something beyond the name (as
>  typified) because there
>  > are sensu stricto or sense lato interpretations “in  play”.
>
>  No! Maybe in botany. Not for the majority of species taxa  overall 
> (which are invertebrate animals). For many (but by  no means all) of 
> these species, a single specimen is enough  to be able to recognise 
> them (plus some experience in the  group, so that one pays attention 
> to likely important  diagnostic characters). My identification here 
> (http://naturewatch.org.nz/observations/1438142) is a  good example. I 
> simply compared two images of different  specimens, and found them to 
> be conspecific with high  confidence. I knew nothing of the species 
> concerned.
>
>  Stephen
>
>
>  --------------------------------------------
>  On Tue, 5/5/15, Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>
>  wrote:
>
>   Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
>   To: "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
>   Cc: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>   Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 9:45 AM
>
>   We are obviously in furious
>   agreement. :)
>
>   It wasn't the 'flag in the sand' that caught my  attention,  but the 
> 'around  which a taxon is  defined' bit.  It is usually the other  way 
> - a taxon  is  defined and a type is selected, either from  existing, 
> or  newly designated  if none exists.
>
>   But we do seem to have a slight difference in approach,  and  it may 
> be  simply semantic. "a very small  percentage of taxa are  
> unambiguously  circumscribed based on their type alone" - I don't  
> circumscribe taxa based  on types as such. For the  purposes of 
> taxonomy, the type is  just another  specimen, even if it is the only 
> specimen. When the taxa  are  sorted, then  the type becomes 
> important. I  like to draw very clear  distinctions between  the  acts 
> of taxonomy and nomenclature, and between the  type  specimen as a  
> specimen and the type  specimen as a type. ;)
>
>   jim
>
>   On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
>   wrote:
>
>   >  I agree completely with what you say, Jim, and  was making the 
> same point  > you ae making – so,  am not sure what you are  objecting 
> to in my “flag  in  > the sand” analogy.  The flag might be over  on  
> one extreme edge of the  > “taxonspace”
>  (as implied by Paul).  A type  anchors a name but does  not  > 
> circumscribe it (except in the narrowest  possible sense  of the type 
> itself).
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > In very poorly understood groups (with a high  taxon:systematist 
> ratio) the  > types stand large as  outposts in the bleak unwatered  
> and minimally  > taxonomist-turbed desert.  This seems to be what  
> Stephen was describing in  > his universe.  As  systematics proceeds, 
> the types  are still critical  to  > anchor the application of names, 
> but the  emphasis  shifts to the boundaries  > between  the various 
> flags (types), and which flags are  taken  over by others  > and 
> become synonyms of what is  regarded as a “good”
>   taxon (not to sound too
>   > militaristic).  In the vascular flora of the  Southeastern United 
> States,  > 7200 taxa currently  recognized, a very small percentage  
> of taxa are  > unambiguously circumscribed based on their type  alone.  
> Put another way,  > the great majority of  taxa can only be 
> unambiguously  circumscribed by  > something beyond the name (as 
> typified) because  there  are sensu stricto or  > sense lato  
> interpretations “in play”.  If I  write  “Andropogon virginicus  > 
> Linnaeus 1753” on a  specimen (or a record in a
>   database) without sec or
>   > sensu, no one tell whether I mean it in the  narrowest  sense, or 
> variously  > including 1,  3, 7, or 12 other taxa recognized in  
> “lumpier”
>  taxonomic  > schemes currently or in recent decades  followed by  
> other credible taxonomic  >  experts.
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > *From:* Jim Croft [mailto:jim.croft at gmail.com]  > *Sent:* Monday, 
> May 04, 2015 4:36 PM  > *To:*  Weakley, Alan  > *Cc:* TAXACOM; Paul 
> van  Rijckevorsel  >  > *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom]  Why stability? - 
> Revisited  >  >  >  > This is not strictly true. The purpose of  the 
> type is  to anchor the name,  > as Paul  describes. It is not to 
> centre, circumscribe or  in any  way define  > the taxon. That is a 
> separate process  that may end up  including one or more  >  types, 
> and hence one or more names. At least with  plants. People may think  
> > they are defining a  taxon by selecting the 'best'
>   possible type to
>   > represent their concept, and it is probably a  wise  thing to do, 
> but this is  > not what is  happening according to the Code. They are  
> simply  anchoring the  > name.
>   >
>   > Jim
>   >
>   > On 05/05/2015 5:20 AM, "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
>   wrote:
>   >
>   > The type is a flag in space around which the  circumscription of a 
> taxon  > (its concept) is  defined -- usually in relation to  other, 
> "competing"
>  taxa.
>   >
>   > -----Original Message-----
>   > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
>   On Behalf Of
>   > Paul van Rijckevorsel
>   > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 7:57 AM
>   > To: TAXACOM
>   > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? -  Revisited  >  > I was a 
> little uneasy why  Stephen Thorpe's attitude  that taxa are defined  > 
> by types is so alien to me.
>   >
>   > But it is very straightforward: from the very first  the  
> 'botanical' Code  > has laid down that  nomenclatural types are not  
> necessarily the most  typical  > or representative element of a taxon  
> (that is, holding  only the type, it is  > not  possible to predict 
> with any degree of confidence  what  the taxon  > exactly looks  > 
> like: the type  is only the type) .
>   >
>   > For plants there does exist a situation where the  whole  unit is 
> determined  > by a reference  specimen, namely in the ICNCP  
> (Cultivated-plant-Code),  > resulting in names of  the type Hydrangea 
> macrophylla  'La France'.
>   >
>   > The ICNCP deals with a field of considerable  complexity  (and 
> which does  > benefit from  regulation), but taxonomy is not  
> involved.
>   >
>   > Paul
>   > _______________________________________________
>   > Taxacom Mailing List
>   > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>   > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>   > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>   > http://taxacom.markmail.org
>   >
>   > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
>   > _______________________________________________
>   > Taxacom Mailing List
>   > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>   > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>   > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>   > http://taxacom.markmail.org
>   >
>   > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
>   >
>   >
>
>
>   --
>   _________________
>   Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com
>   ~ +61-(0)2-62509499 ~ +61 (0)418 675 936 ~  http://about.me/jrc  
> _______________________________________________
>   Taxacom Mailing List
>   Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>   http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>   The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: 
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>   Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: 
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

Taxacom Mailing List

Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

------------------------------

End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 110, Issue 5
***************************************

---
El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus.
http://www.avast.com