[Taxacom] Type localities (was: Bionomina 13 published)

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Dec 27 22:23:25 CST 2018


Such diversity of opinion!
Distributions may be subject to change, but that doesn't make them less important!!
Type localities may be subject to vagueness (e.g. "Type locality: New Zealand") or error (e.g. several species have N.Z. as their stated type locality but are not actually found here, e.g. Carneiola zealandica, which is probably an obscure South African species!)
Localities for any specimen are important, but type localities are no more important than locality data for any specimen.
Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 28/12/18, Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type localities (was: Bionomina 13 published)
 To: "Kenneth Kinman" <kinman at hotmail.com>
 Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Elena Kupriyanova" <elena.kupriyanova at austmus.gov.au>, "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Received: Friday, 28 December, 2018, 5:18 PM
 
 
 
 "I would agree with Stephen that the
 distribution
 of the taxa is more important
 than the type locality itself"
 
 No Ken, it is not, at least not for taxonomy -
 ecology is another matter.
 Distributions are
 ephemeral, changing seasonally and with climate. type
 localities are permanent, and useful, as
 starting points, even for
 migratory birds
 and butterflies.
 
 "Where I found it I do not remember."
 (Hans Sloane 1725: v. 2 p. 194). 
 Love that
 quote. Try saying that in a paper today.
 
 
 Geoff
 
 On Fri, December 28, 2018 4:43 pm, Kenneth
 Kinman wrote:
 > Hi Stephen and Elena,
 >        The situation that Elena
 described is not what I would call a
 >
 "widespread uniform species".  Her example would
 tend to be a chain
 > of subspecies, each
 with small but discoverable differences from
 > neighboring populations (even more so from
 more distant
 > subspecies).  So I would
 agree that type localities would be
 >
 important (although I would agree with Stephen that the
 > distribution of the taxa is more important
 than the type locality
 > itself).
 >         What I was referring to as
 "widespread uniform species" would
 > generally be long-distance migratory
 species, like the monarch
 > butterfly or
 perhaps even more so the whooping crane.  The type
 > locality of the whooping crane has almost
 no importance at all, so
 > Stephen and I
 would agree on that.  However, their is a whole
 > continuum from there to the opposite
 extreme of a species such as
 > a
 polyploid plant known only from the small area where it
 arose,
 > having arisen relatively
 recently from a diploid ancestor.  The
 >
 type locality of that recently evolved polyploid would be
 far more
 > important than the type
 locality of an albatross or bison, because
 > the distribution of that polyploid would
 barely extend beyond the
 > type
 locality.  A chain of subspecies as Elena described is
 > somewhere in between those extremes.
 >       So I would agree with Stephen
 that the distributions are always
 > going
 to be more important than the type locality, but I
 wouldn't be
 > so willing to be so
 forceful in minimizing the importance of type
 > localities to some researchers, especially
 those who study rare taxa
 > with very
 limited distributions.  It's a contiuum, but a very
 wide
 > one, so the importance of type
 localities will also be a continuum,
 >
 even though their distributions beyond the type locality
 will always
 > be more important.
 >                      
 ---------------------Ken
 >
 ________________________________
 > From:
 Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 on behalf of Stephen
 > Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 8:20
 PM
 > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
 Elena Kupriyanova
 > Subject: Re:
 [Taxacom] Type localities (was: Bionomina 13 published)
 >
 > Not quite! The type
 localities per se still aren't important in the
 > situation you describe. What matters is
 the distributions of the segregate
 >
 species in the complex.
 >
 > Stephen
 >
 >
 --------------------------------------------
 > On Fri, 28/12/18, Elena Kupriyanova <Elena.Kupriyanova at austmus.gov.au>
 > wrote:
 >
 >  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type localities
 (was: Bionomina 13 published)
 >  To:
 "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
 <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 >  Received: Friday, 28 December, 2018,
 3:15 PM
 >
 >  > to
 answer your question, I wouldn't
 > 
 think type localities would be of much importance at all
 for
 >  a common, widespread uniform
 species.
 >
 >  Oh,
 really? Except for the most common
 > 
 situation in shallow-water marine invertebrates. Once one
 >  actually bothers to look more or less
 carefully at this
 >  "common,
 widespread uniform species" and discovers a huge
 >  species complex beyond the façade of
 this "common" or even
 > 
 "cosmopolitan species", the importance of the
 type
 >  localities somehow becomes
 crystal clear.
 >
 >
 >  Dr. Elena Kupriyanova
 >  Senior Research Scientist
 >  Marine Invertebrates
 >
 >  Associate
 Editor,
 >  Records of the Australian
 Museum
 >
 > 
 Australian Museum Research Institute
 > 
 1 William Street Sydney NSW 2010
 > 
 Australia
 >  t 61 2 9320 6340   m
 >  61402735679   f 61 2 9320 6059
 >  Visit: http://www.australianmuseum.net.au
 >  Like: http://www.facebook.com/australianmuseum
 >  Follow: http://www.twitter.com/austmus
 >  Watch: http://www.youtube.com/austmus
 >  Inspiring the exploration of nature
 and
 >  cultures
 >
 >
 >  [https://media.prelaunch.australianmuseum.net.au/media/dd/images/am_whales-email_signature.a36aaa4.0075fd9.jpg]
 >  <https://australianmuseum.net.au/landing/whales/>
 >
 >  Click here to read
 the Australian
 >  Museum email
 disclaimer.
 >
 >  The
 Australian Museum email
 > 
 disclaimer<https://australianmuseum.net.au/images/footer/disclaimer.htm>
 > 
 _______________________________________________
 >  Taxacom Mailing List
 >  Send Taxacom mailing list submissions
 >  to: 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
 >  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 31
 Some Years, 1987-2018.
 >
 >
 _______________________________________________
 > Taxacom Mailing List
 >
 Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: 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
 > 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 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
 >
 _______________________________________________
 > Taxacom Mailing List
 >
 Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: 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
 > 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 31 Some Years,
 1987-2018.
 >
 
 
 --
 Geoffrey B.
 Read, Ph.D.
 Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
 gread at actrix.gen.nz
 
 


More information about the Taxacom mailing list