[Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

Mon May 4 21:15:38 CDT 2015

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.