[Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
Mary Barkworth
Mary.Barkworth at usu.edu
Fri Dec 15 15:57:31 CST 2017
and then there is unispecific. No endorsement for it but we used it in the FNA grass volumes in response to comments that monotypic was not always appreopriate.
________________________________
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Les Watling <watling at hawaii.edu>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 2:34:51 PM
To: Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
Blackwelder, (1967), p. 517:
"If a new genus is proposed for a single species, that species is
automatically the genotype, and the genus is said to be *monobasic*. (The
term *monotypic* is sometimes used in this sense, buit it is inappropriate
and should be avoided.)"
News to me..... should have paid closer attention in class!
Les
Les Watling
Professor, Dept. of Biology
216 Edmondson Hall
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Honolulu, HI 96822
Ph. 808-956-8621
Cell: 808-772-9563
e-mail: watling at hawaii.edu
Tweets from @WernerTwertzog:
I do not own a selfie stick because the self does not exist.
When a tree falls in a forest, it does, of course, make a sound, because,
you have to realize, its not all about you.
-- William
Pannapacker
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 8:00 AM, <taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> Daily News from the Taxacom Mailing List
>
> When responding to a message, please do not copy the entire digest into
> your reply.
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: monotypic or monobasic (Lynn Raw)
> 2. Re: monotypic or monobasic (Stephen Thorpe)
> 3. Three kinds of bacteria (Negibacteria the oldest) (Kenneth Kinman)
> 4. monotypic monobasic (John Grehan)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 20:18:15 +0100
> From: Lynn Raw <lynn at afriherp.org>
> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
> Message-ID: <FF14C7A8-C240-4BDD-9F72-95BDFF711725 at afriherp.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> From what I understand, monobasic is a term used in chemistry while
> monotypic is a term used in taxonomy and nomenclature. Definitions of both
> terms are available in good dictionaries or even on the web.
>
> Lynn Raw
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On 14 Dec 2017, at 09:49, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> wrote:
> >
> > Monotypy is a nomenclatural term (ICZN) in relation to the fixation of a
> type species of a new genus, but the grammatical variant monotypic has
> broader meaning. It is perhaps ugly to have variants of the same term with
> different meanings (one broader than the other)!
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > On Thu, 14/12/17, Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at freeler.nl> wrote:
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
> > To: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Received: Thursday, 14 December, 2017, 9:32 PM
> >
> > The correct term should be
> > "unispecific".
> >
> > The term "monotypic" sounds
> > nomenclatural, and
> > indeed has been defined
> > as a nomenclatural term
> > in the ICNafp. By
> > contrast, "unispecific" represents
> > a taxonomic concept
> >
> > Sometimes "monospecific" can be
> > found, but this
> > is ugly, as it is a hybrid
> > combining a Greek and a
> > Latin word
> > element.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> > To: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>;
> > "John Grehan"
> > <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:44 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or
> > monobasic
> >
> >
> >> I expect that these terms don't have
> > very precise definitions and that
> >> there
> > may be a fair amount of variation in exact usage. My feeling
> > is that
> >> "monobasic" isn't
> > used much any more. It presumably means "with a single
> >
> >> basis", i.e. "based on a
> > single species". Monotypic presumably means "based
> >
> >> on a single type", though
> > "type" should, I think, be interpreted in the
> >> general sense, not as types in the
> > nomenclatural sense (i.e. type species
> >> or type specimens), which is a possible
> > source of confusion. So, a genus
> >> with
> > just one species regarded as valid would be monotypic, even
> > if the
> >> single species had synonyms (and
> > therefore more than one type specimen
> >> included). All nominal genera obviously
> > have only one type species, whether
> >> or
> > not the genus is monotypic! Monotypy is the act of basing a
> > new genus on
> >> a single species. I have
> > never seen or heard the term "monobasy"! I also
> >
> >> don't think that these terms apply
> > to species, i.e. basing a new species on
> >> a single specimen doesn't make the
> > species mono-anything!
> >> Stephen
> >>
> >>
> > --------------------------------------------
> >> On Thu, 14/12/17, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Subject:
> > [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
> >> To:
> > "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> Received: Thursday, 14 December, 2017,
> > 6:07 PM
> >>
> >> Dear
> > colleagues,
> >>
> >> I have
> > seen the terms 'monotypic' and
> >>
> > 'monobasic' applied to genera with a
> >> single species. I am curious to know if
> >> there is a technically correct
> >> choice for the use of these terms for
> >> such genera. If anyone may be able to
> >> enlighten me as to the rules, if any,
> >> governing how these terms are
> >> properly used I would be most
> >> grateful.
> >>
> >> John Grehan
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >> Send Taxacom mailing
> > list submissions
> >> to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the
> >> Web, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> You can reach the person managing the
> >> list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>
> >> Nurturing Nuance
> > while Assaulting
> >> Ambiguity for 30 Some
> > Years, 1987-2017.
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >> Send Taxacom mailing
> > list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web,
> > visit:
> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> You can reach the person managing the list
> > at:
> >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>
> >> Nurturing Nuance
> > while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > ---
> >> Deze e-mail is gecontroleerd op
> > virussen door AVG.
> >> http://www.avg.com
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list
> > submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >
> > Nurturing Nuance while
> > Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >
> > Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 20:13:15 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> To: Lynn Raw <lynn at afriherp.org>
> Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
> Message-ID: <879602756.4731497.1513282395027 at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> "Monobasic" certainly is (or was) also used in taxonomy, but perhaps not
> so much now, and any Google search only turns up the chemistry meaning.
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Fri, 15/12/17, Lynn Raw <lynn at afriherp.org> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
> To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Cc: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Paul van Rijckevorsel" <
> dipteryx at freeler.nl>
> Received: Friday, 15 December, 2017, 8:18 AM
>
> From what I understand, monobasic
> is a term used in chemistry while monotypic is a term used
> in taxonomy and nomenclature. Definitions of both terms are
> available in good dictionaries or even on the web.
>
> Lynn Raw
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On 14 Dec 2017, at 09:49, Stephen Thorpe
> <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> wrote:
> >
> > Monotypy
> is a nomenclatural term (ICZN) in relation to the fixation
> of a type species of a new genus, but the grammatical
> variant monotypic has broader meaning. It is perhaps ugly to
> have variants of the same term with different meanings (one
> broader than the other)!
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------
> > On Thu, 14/12/17, Paul van Rijckevorsel
> <dipteryx at freeler.nl>
> wrote:
> >
> > Subject:
> Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
> >
> To: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Received: Thursday, 14 December, 2017,
> 9:32 PM
> >
> > The
> correct term should be
> >
> "unispecific".
> >
> > The term "monotypic" sounds
> > nomenclatural, and
> >
> indeed has been defined
> > as a
> nomenclatural term
> > in the ICNafp. By
> > contrast, "unispecific"
> represents
> > a taxonomic concept
> >
> > Sometimes
> "monospecific" can be
> > found,
> but this
> > is ugly, as it is a hybrid
> > combining a Greek and a
> > Latin word
> >
> element.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > ----- Original
> Message -----
> >
> >
> From: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> > To: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>;
> > "John Grehan"
> > <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:44
> AM
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] monotypic
> or
> > monobasic
> >
> >
> >> I expect that
> these terms don't have
> > very precise
> definitions and that
> >> there
> > may be a fair amount of variation in exact
> usage. My feeling
> > is that
> >> "monobasic" isn't
> > used much any more. It presumably means
> "with a single
> >
> >> basis", i.e. "based on a
> > single species". Monotypic presumably
> means "based
> >
> >> on a single type", though
> > "type" should, I think, be
> interpreted in the
> >> general sense,
> not as types in the
> > nomenclatural sense
> (i.e. type species
> >> or type
> specimens), which is a possible
> > source
> of confusion. So, a genus
> >> with
> > just one species regarded as valid would
> be monotypic, even
> > if the
> >> single species had synonyms (and
> > therefore more than one type specimen
> >> included). All nominal genera
> obviously
> > have only one type species,
> whether
> >> or
> >
> not the genus is monotypic! Monotypy is the act of basing
> a
> > new genus on
> >> a single species. I have
> > never seen or heard the term
> "monobasy"! I also
> >
> >> don't think that these terms
> apply
> > to species, i.e. basing a new
> species on
> >> a single specimen
> doesn't make the
> > species
> mono-anything!
> >> Stephen
> >>
> >>
> >
> --------------------------------------------
> >> On Thu, 14/12/17, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Subject:
> >
> [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
> >>
> To:
> > "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> Received: Thursday, 14 December,
> 2017,
> > 6:07 PM
> >>
>
> >> Dear
> >
> colleagues,
> >>
> >> I have
> > seen the
> terms 'monotypic' and
> >>
> > 'monobasic' applied to genera with
> a
> >> single species. I am curious to
> know if
> >> there is a technically
> correct
> >> choice for the use of these
> terms for
> >> such genera. If anyone
> may be able to
> >> enlighten me as to
> the rules, if any,
> >> governing how
> these terms are
> >> properly used I
> would be most
> >> grateful.
> >>
> >> John
> Grehan
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >> Send Taxacom
> mailing
> > list submissions
> >> to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the
> >> Web, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> You can reach the person managing
> the
> >> list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>
> >> Nurturing
> Nuance
> > while Assaulting
> >> Ambiguity for 30 Some
> > Years, 1987-2017.
> >>
>
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >> Send Taxacom
> mailing
> > list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the
> Web,
> > visit:
> >>
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> You can reach the person managing the
> list
> > at:
> >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>
> >> Nurturing
> Nuance
> > while Assaulting Ambiguity for
> 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > ---
> >> Deze e-mail
> is gecontroleerd op
> > virussen door
> AVG.
> >> http://www.avg.com
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing
> list
> > submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web,
> visit:
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list
> at:
> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >
> > Nurturing Nuance
> while
> > Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some
> Years, 1987-2017.
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing
> list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web,
> visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list
> at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >
> > Nurturing Nuance
> while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 17:21:14 +0000
> From: Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
> To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: [Taxacom] Three kinds of bacteria (Negibacteria the oldest)
> Message-ID:
> <CY4PR11MB1480650BB2E1588796035B5FC10B0 at CY4PR11MB1480.
> namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear All,
> I am puzzled why the prokaryotes are still classified as Domains
> Bacteria and Archaea. The most fundamental divide should actually be
> between Negibacteria (which possess the outer negibacterial membrane) on
> the one hand, and the Posibacteria and Archaebacteria (which have lost that
> outer membrane). Cavalier-Smith 1998 proposed the name Unibacteria for
> Posibacteria + Archaebacteria (since they have only the one membrane, not
> two).
> Cavalier-Smith, 2006 ("Rooting the tree of life by transition
> analyses") shows that Negibacteria are the oldest of the three taxa, and
> Archaebacteria are actually the youngest. I am pretty sure that is why
> eubacterial trees are so screwed up, because using Archaebacteria as the
> outgroup will misroot them (Archaebacteria are actually an ingroup, not an
> outgroup).
> Anyway, the names Negibacteria and Posibacteria were proposed 30
> years ago (Cavalier-Smith, 1987), and they are excellent names which
> subdivide the Eubacteria into two large and important taxa. So why aren't
> they being used in databases like Catalogue of Life and NCBI's Taxonomy
> Browser, etc. ? The Three Domain classification of life is outdated and
> should have been discarded a long time ago.
> -----------------Ken Kinman
> Cavalier-Smith, 2006:
> https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=
> PMC1586193_1745-6150-1-19-2&req=4
> Evolutionary relationships among the four major kinds o | Open-i<
> https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=
> PMC1586193_1745-6150-1-19-2&req=4>
> openi.nlm.nih.gov
> Evolutionary relationships among the four major kinds of cell. The
> horizontal red arrow indicates the position of the universal root as
> inferred from the first
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:23:42 -0500
> From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: [Taxacom] monotypic monobasic
> Message-ID:
> <CADN0ud1U14x+Kqubn9W1YKFyDrOCbptMt0NJE69_
> VcyTZFFTjA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> My thanks for the various responses. Much appreciated.
>
> John Grehan
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> 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
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 140, Issue 11
> ****************************************
>
_______________________________________________
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
Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list