Re: paleonet heterogenous taxa and ICZN regulations

["brcgranier" <brcgranier@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I am more familiar with the ICBN ...
If you have twelve specimens quoted as "types" you should select one of them
as a lectotype.
You can then discuss whether the remaining 11 specimens belong or not to the
same species ... and emendate the diagnoses for the species ...
If the species is also the type-species for a genus then your lectotype is
per definition the type of the genus ... (Stop me if I am wrong)
One cannot unvalidate taxa unless he/she gets a serious documentation and
unless there is a general agreement by an international commitee that will
state on the case ... there are also priority rules, etc.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Monsch" <kmonsch@biol.uni.wroc.pl>
To: <PaleoNet@nhm.ac.uk>
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 4:25 PM
Subject: paleonet heterogenous taxa and ICZN regulations


> Dear all,
>
> I'd like to ask the list for advice on a problem related to
> nomenclature. What bothers me is that I think I know what action to
> take, even though the ICZ doesn't seem to be very explicit. I'm having a
> discussion with a colleague at the moment of the correct assignment of a
> taxonomic name to fossil fish taxa and the validity of certain names.
> There is for example a publication of 1901, in which a new genus is
> described, consisting of two species. The first issue concerns the type
> species (I'll call it here 'Species 1'). In its description, twelve
> specimens are mentioned and each briefly described. These specimens are
> however a heterogenous assembly of two different species with clearly
> different morphological traits. My colleague therefore states that its
> genus name has to be deleted because its original definition is
> incorrect. It should thus be either a nomen dubium or a synonym (if
> assumed that the type belongs to a previously existing genus-something I
> disagree with). I think it doesn't add up. Isn't the name of the species
> fixed by its holotype, prompting the need to revise the species by
> excluding the original paratypes that are something else? Such a case is
> not explicitly stated by ICZN as far as I see, but I always assumed it
> works this way. Am I right? To make things more complicated, another
> species is described from the same genus. However, this 'Species 2' is
> not congeneric with 'Species 1', in the sense that the holotypes of
> Species 1 and 2 belong to different genera with different morphological
> traits. My colleague would say, in a similar fashion, that the genus
> name is redundant, because its original definition is incorrect. Again,
> ICZN does't explicitly address an issue as this, but again I'd assume,
> as with the species example, that its name is fixed by the type species
> and that the genus needs to be revised. Do I see it right? All comments
> and every piece of advice will be appreciated!
>
> Regards,
> Ken
> --
>   ==================================================================
> Dr. K.A. Monsch                             tel: +48-(0)71-3754017
>                                              fax: +48-(0)71-3222817
> Department of Vertebrate Zoology
> Institute of Zoology
> University of Wrocław
> ul H. Sienkiewicza 21
> 50-335 Wroclaw
> POLAND
>
>