[Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

Mon May 4 16:58:18 CDT 2015

> 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.