[Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

Mon May 4 22:28:27 CDT 2015

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.