[Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

Mon May 4 22:45:30 CDT 2015

You misunderstand Robin! I know all that, obviously! I was talking about original descriptions involving more than one specimen, but where the description is explicitly of the holotype, typically with some vague additional comment about variation, like "no significant variation"!

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
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, 3:28 PM

 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.