[Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
Lynn Raw
lynn at afriherp.org
Mon Dec 18 13:44:16 CST 2017
Stephen,
If you refer to the glossary in Ernst Mayr's "Principles of Systematic Zoology" (1969) on page 407 you will see his definition of monotypic (and of polytypic on page 409). It has nothing to do with the nomenclatural type species or specimens but rather refers to the number of immediately subordinate taxa contained within the monotypic or polytypic taxon.
Lynn
> On 18 Dec 2017, at 20:15, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>
> None of this has any bearing on the more informal usage of the term "monotypic" for genera with only a single species. Words mean whatever people use them to mean. It is interesting that the adjectival form "monotypic" is rarely used in the nomenclatural context, where the noun "monotypy" is used. It would sound odd to say that a genus which now has hundreds of species is monotypic, but perhaps strictly speaking correct if it was originally based on a single species!
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 19/12/17, Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
> To: "Javier Luque" <javierluquec at gmail.com>, "Tony Rees" <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
> Cc: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
> Received: Tuesday, 19 December, 2017, 6:48 AM
>
>>>> Use of 'monotypy' *sensu* the
> International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
> We should not forget that the Code
> Glossary is part of the legislative text.
>
> ICZN GLOSSARY:
>
> monotypy, n.
> The situation arising (1) when an
> author establishes a nominal genus or subgenus for what he
> or she considers to be a single taxonomic species and
> denotes that species by an available name (the nominal
> species so named is the type-species by monotypy) [Art.
> 68.3]; or (2) when an author bases a nominal species-group
> taxon on a single specimen but does not explicitly designate
> it as holotype (holotype by monotypy; see Article 73.1.2).
>
> subsequent monotypy
> The situation arising when a nominal
> genus or subgenus was established before 1931 without any
> included nominal species, and when only a single taxonomic
> species denoted by an available name was first subsequently
> referred to it [Art. 69.3].
>
> /Thomas Pape
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thomas Pape, Natural History Museum of
> Denmark
> President of ICZN
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf Of Javier Luque
> Sent: 18. december 2017 18:34
> To: Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
> Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>;
> Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or
> monobasic
>
> Use of 'monotypy' *sensu* the
> International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
>
> Chapter 15: Types in the genus group.
>
> "Art. 68.3: Type species by monotypy.
> When an author establishes a new nominal genus-group taxon
> for a single taxonomic species and denotes that species by
> an available name, the nominal species so named is the type
> species. Fixation by this means is deemed to be fixation by
> monotypy, regardless of any cited synonyms, subspecies, or
> unavailable names, and regardless of whether the author
> considered the nominal genus-group taxon to contain other
> species which he or she did not cite by name, and regardless
> of nominal species-group taxa doubtfully included or
> identified.
>
> 68.3.1. If a new genus is divided into
> subgenera at the time its name is established, and if the
> nominotypical subgenus contains only a single species, that
> nominal species is deemed to be the type by monotypy of the
> new nominal genus."
> Cheers,
> Javier
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Tony
> Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In the message below I tried
> internationalizing the links but they do
>> not seem to work so well - the
> ones I actually used are here:
>>
>> https://books.google.com.au/books?redir_esc=y&id=Qky7_6-
>>
> UcQQC&q=monobasic#v=snippet&q=monotypic&f=false
>> https://books.google.com.au/books?redir_esc=y&id=Qky7_6-
>>
> UcQQC&q=monotypic#v=snippet&q=monotypic&f=false
>>
>> - Tony
>>
>> Tony Rees, New South Wales,
> Australia
>> https://about.me/TonyRees
>>
>> On 18 December 2017 at 16:59, Tony
> Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>> Definitions from Terms Used
> in Bionomenclature: The Naming of
>>> Organisms and Plant
> Communities ...edited by D. L. Hawksworth
>>> here:
>>> https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=Qky7_6-
>>>
> UcQQC&q=monobasic#v=snippet&q=monobasic&f=false
>>> https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=Qky7_6-
>>>
> UcQQC&q=monotypic#v=snippet&q=monotypic&f=false
>>>
>>> Regards - Tony
>>>
>>> Tony Rees, New South Wales,
> Australia https://about.me/TonyRees
>>>
>>> On 18 December 2017 at 00:32,
> Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Notice that this
> definition of "monotypic" is unequivocally
>> nomenclatural
>>>> (appropriately so, I
> suppose, given its source): "monotypic genus.
>>>> A
>> genus
>>>> for which a single
> binomial is validly published (Art. 38.6) (see
>>>> also unispecific)".
> The definition was provided in the ICNafp only
>>>> for the purposes of
> Article 38.5-6 allowing simultaneous
>>>> publication of a genus
>> and
>>>> a species description
> (the description being the same).
>>>>
>>>> This nomenclatural
> definition is contrary to the very common and
>> standard
>>>> usage in floras and other
> botanical works along the lines of
>>>> "Ginkgo is
>> a
>>>> monotypic genus, with
> only a single extant species". This common
>>>> and standard usage is
> "taxonomic", meaning there is only a single
>>>> currently
> "recognized/accepted" species in the genus. Even
> leaving
>>>> aside the
>> issue
>>>> of "monotypy" and extinct
> taxa, Ginkgo (and other prominent
>>>> examples of monotypic
> genera, like Welwitschia) are not monotypic
>>>> by the ICNafp
> definition.
>>>>
>>>> It's hard to think of a
> situation (outside the Code itself or a
>>>> nomenclatural analysis of
> very rare cases) in which one would want
>>>> or
>> need
>>>> to use "monotypic" as
> defined narrowly and nomenclaturally to mean
>>>> a
>> genus
>>>> for which only a single
> species had ever been validly published.
>>>>
>>>> And note that the Code
> seemingly defines "unispecific" by not
>>>> defining
>> it
>>>> but providing a
> definition that in theory should replace and mean
>> something
>>>> different than the very
> narrow nomenclatural definition of "monotypic":
>>>> "unispecific. [Not
> defined] – with a single species." The "[Not
>> defined]"
>>>> is explained: "The
> particular usage of a few other words, not
>>>> defined in the Code, is
> also indicated; these are italicized in the
>>>> list below and
>> are
>>>> accompanied by editorial
> explanation of their use."
>>>>
>>>> Googling "monotypic" one
> finds contrary definitions, a few with the
>>>> new narrow nomenclatural
> definition, but others, like this one a
>>>> Merriam-Webster,
> reflection the more common usage: "including a
>>>> single representative
> —used especially of a genus with only one species".
>>>>
>>>> I thought I'd hit the
> jackpot with a Wikipedia disambiguation page
>>>> for "Monotype", but:
>>>>
>>>> A monotype is a print
> made by drawing or painting on a smooth,
>>>> non-absorbent surface.
>>>>
> Monotype may also refer to:
>>>>
> Monotypic taxon, a
> taxonomic group containing only
>>>> one immediately
> subordinate taxon
>>>>
> Monotype Corporation, a
> typesetting and typeface
>>>> design company
>>>>
> Monotype System - the
> typesetting machine made by
>>>> the Monotype Corporation
>>>>
>>>> The joke's on us...
> ;-)
>>>>
>>>> -----Original
> Message-----
>>>> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf
>>>> Of Mary Barkworth
>>>> Sent: Saturday, December
> 16, 2017 6:15 AM
>>>> To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
> monotypic or monobasic
>>>>
>>>> Hurray! Thank you Paul.
> It was probably suggested to me by someone
>>>> as it is not the sort of
> thing I would have gone out on a limb over.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original
> Message-----
>>>> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf
>>>> Of Paul van Rijckevorsel
>>>> Sent: Saturday, December
> 16, 2017 2:37 AM
>>>> To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
> monotypic or monobasic
>>>>
>>>> Well, "unispecific" is
> endorsed by the ICNafp, see the Glossary:
>>>> http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=glo
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message
> -----
>>>> From: "Mary Barkworth"
> <Mary.Barkworth at usu.edu>
>>>> To: "Les Watling" <watling at hawaii.edu>;
>
>>>> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>>>> Sent: Friday, December
> 15, 2017 10:57 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
> monotypic or monobasic
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Javier Luque, PhD Candidate
> Department of Biological Sciences
> University of Alberta
> Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9, Canada
> E-mail: luque at ualberta.ca
>
> P Please consider the environment
> before printing this e-mail
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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