[Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

[Weakley, Alan]

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.