[Taxacom] Homo sapiens
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Jan 14 14:27:22 CST 2016
Actually, on second thoughts, it is entirely unclear/indeterminate what Linnaeus intended (see http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/726909).
The problem is that he clearly named and numbered two species of Homo, i.e.
(1) Homo sapiens;
(2) Homo troglodytes;
But although variants Homo sapiens americanus etc. got "numbered" with an alpha symbol, etc., Homo sapiens ferus (if that is what he meant) did not get so numbered, so what are we to make of it? The description suggests a diurnal cultural variant with tetrapod locomotion, being both mute and hairy! Does sound like some people we know, admittedly!
The phrase "nofce Te ipfum" occurs before mention of species or variants, and appears to translate to "know thyself". This does suggest that Linnaeus was including himself in the *genus*, but no mention of that under either of the two species.
I don't see any room for a nominotypical subspecies, unless one ignores the term 'ferus', but then the description of the nominotypical subspecies becomes a diurnal cultural variant with tetrapod locomotion, being both mute and hairy! Note that this contrasts with H. troglodytes which is stated to be nocturnal.
All in all, one big mess which probably doesn't need sorting out.
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 15/1/16, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homo sapiens
To: "'Doug Yanega'" <dyanega at ucr.edu>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Received: Friday, 15 January, 2016, 8:41 AM
I draw people's attention once again
to the prominent term 'ferus' which appears after the
original description heading for Homo sapiens. It seems to
me that Linnaeus only intended the name Homo sapiens to
refer to "people in the wild". This would exclude him from
the type series. The races (subspecies) that he gives names
to represent all specimens which he intended the name Homo
sapiens to apply to. There is no implied nominotypical
subspecies. He only had indigenous people in mind.
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 15/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homo sapiens
To: "'Doug Yanega'" <dyanega at ucr.edu>,
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Friday, 15 January, 2016, 7:36 AM
Hi Doug,
One issue with your
interpretation that Linnaeus can serve as the Holotype:
Holotypes must be designated within the original work
(Art.
73.1.3). Linneaus neither stated nor implied in the
original
publication that the species-group taxon is based on a
single specimen, so we cannot retroactively infer him as
the
holotype by monotypy (Art. 73.1.2). The "ANY
EVIDENCE" (your emphasis) component of Art. 72.4.1.1
can only be used in the context of name-bearing types
fixed
subsequently. Thus, if we are to accept that Linnaeus
included himself within H. sapiens sapiens (lacking blonde
hair and blue eyes), then we can regard him as being part
of
the Type Series for that nominal species-group taxon. Note
that there is no requirement that a "Type Series"
consists of more than one specimen. There may be evidence
that he examined and considered other bipedal homonids to
be
members of H. sapiens sapiens, or there may not such
evidence. But in any case, Linneaus the man can only be
designated as the lectotype; not regarded as the
holotype.
If you disagree,
then the heterogeny of interpretations by Commissioners
expands, as you predicted. If you agree, then perhaps we
can take a small step towards consensus.
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 Doug Yanega
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:36
AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homo sapiens
>
> On 1/14/16 8:46 AM,
Michael Reuscher wrote:
> > In
Addition to Linnaeus not "expressly" excluding any
"specimens" as
> > types,
Linnaeus does not fit his own description of Homo sapiens
> > europaeus because this subspecies was
described with "Pilis
> >
flavescentibus, prolixis. Oculis caeruleis" - meaning
blonde hair and
> > blue eyes.
Linnaeus had brown hair and brown eyes. Therefore he was
> > designated the "type
specimen" of another
> >
subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens.
>
>
> I get such a kick out of this
thread every time it crops up, because it seems
> impossible to put it to rest, as Mike Ivie
noted. You line up 5 ICZN
>
Commissioners, you'll get 5 different opinions. To
illustrate my point, I'll give
> a
different answer from everyone else who has already
posted,
including 2
> other Commissioners:
>
> "*7**2.4.1.*
The type series of a nominal species-group taxon consists
of
all
> the specimens included by the
author in the new nominal taxon (whether
> directly or by bibliographic reference),
except any that the author expressly
>
excludes from the type series [Art. 72.4.6 <http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-
>
sites/iczn/code/includes/page.jsp?nfv=&article=72#4.6>],
> or refers to as distinct variants (e.g. by
name, letter or number), or doubtfully
>
attributes to the taxon.
>
> *72.4.1.1.* For a nominal species or
subspecies established before 2000, any
>
evidence, published or unpublished, may be taken into
account to determine
> what specimens
constitute the type series."
>
> Given this definition of what constitutes
the type series, (1) Linnaeus gave no
>
indication as to any physical specimens whatsoever, for
ANY
of the variants
> of Homo sapiens, so
there is nothing we can determine under
>
72.4.1 - however, since 72.4.1.1 allows us to
retroactively
use ANY
> EVIDENCE to determine the type
series, we can, in fact, infer that at the very
> least, Linnaeus had ONE specimen that he
MUST have examined when
> describing H.
sapiens: himself. As such, I maintain that his remains can
and
> should be interpreted as the
holotype, rather than the lectotype.
>
> The only "issue" I see here
is that some people argue that every person
> Linnaeus ever met is a putative syntype
(therefore Stearns' lectotype
>
designation could be accepted), but I find the logic
faulty:
we do not consider
> every cat that
Linnaeus saw in his lifetime, or every dog, or every
horse,
or
> every chicken, or every goat, or
every pig, as members of the type series for
> those species. To me, one must limit the
type series of H. sapiens to
> specimens
we *know* he had available to him for examination when he
was
> writing the description, for the
same reason you would not simply and
>
arbitrarily say that every dog Linnaeus ever saw was a
syntype of Canis
> familiaris - *there is
no such evidence*. If we have *no evidence* that he
> examined any other particular humans while
writing his description, then his
> own
person is all we know *beyond any
>
doubt* that he had available, and a type series of one
specimen equals a
> holotype.
>
> I'm sure others
will disagree, and likewise sure that this topic will come
up
> again and again and again, never to
be resolved.
>
>
Sincerely,
>
> --
> Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology
Entomology Research Museum
> Univ. of California, Riverside, CA
92521-0314 skype: dyanega
> phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer:
opinions are mine, not UCR's)
>
http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
> "There are some enterprises in
which a careful disorderliness
>
is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick,
Chap. 82
>
>
_______________________________________________
> 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 29 years
of Taxacom in 2016.
_______________________________________________
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 29 years of
Taxacom in 2016.
_______________________________________________
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 29 years of Taxacom in 2016.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list