[Taxacom] Can the type species of a genus be a synonym within its own genus?

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Dear Tony,
It is not necessary that the type species of a genus must be in current 
usage as the valid name of a species. It can be a junior synonym just 
like familiaris is a junior synonym of C. lupus for those who consider 
familiaris and lupus conspecific.
The type species can also be used as the valid name for a subspecies, 
for those who like to follow MSW 2005 and consider familiaris and lupus 
as different subspecies.

The type species can also be a junior synonym of a subspecies.
The type species can even be a nomen dubium at the level of species, 
provided that its generic identity is doubtless.

The type species is always the nominal species, and should be cited in 
its original genus-species combination, not in its current combination.

If C. familiaris is the type of Canis, fixed by Linnean tautonymy in the 
original source, this will remain the type species of that genus, 
regardless of the classification of that name with respect to Canis lupus.
Canis lupus must not be cited as and will not become the type species of 
Canis, neither if familiaris is regarded as a subspecies of lupus, nor 
as a synonym.

If this helps
Francisco


-----
Francisco Welter-Schultes

Am 18.05.2018 um 00:19 schrieb Tony Rees:
> Dear Taxacomers,
> 
> I was looking again at the various taxonomic treatments that have been
> proposed for the domestic dog, Canis (or Canis Lupus) familiaris, and by
> extension the dingo as mentioned a little while back. There seems to be
> general agreement that the dog is derived from the gray wolf Canis lupus by
> domestication, or perhaps from an extinct subspecies of the latter (as
> briefly discussed on Taxacom a few years back, see
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/2013-December/126549.html and
> successive messages). Both the epithets familiaris and lupus are on the
> ICZN Official list, by virtue of Direction 22 (which dealt with familiaris
> as the type specis of Canis) here:
> https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/34652714 , and Opinion 2027 (
> https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/34357823) which dealt with the names
> of wild forms versus domesticated forms of the same taxon (thereby placing
> lupus on the list).
> 
> The influential "Mammal Species of the World" (MSW) , 2005 edition seems
> largely responsible for the present prevalence of treating familiaris as a
> subspecies of lupus. My question is, if familiaris is the type species of
> the genus, this treatment effectively synonymizes familiaris with lupus at
> species level, which I am thinking should not be possible under relevant
> nomenclatural rules.
> 
> It is quite likely that I am wrong in this regard but I would be happy to
> educated further with respect to the question as posed, namely, can the
> type species of a genus be a synonym (at species level) within its own
> genus, or should in fact the wolf become Canis familiaris if the two taxa
> are not separated at species level (irrespective of what  Opinion 2027 has
> to say).
> 
> Looking forward to your comments,
> 
> Regards - Tony
> 
> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> https://about.me/TonyRees
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>