[Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

Mon May 4 20:18:45 CDT 2015

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.