| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
This is a common scenario in both the plant and zoo kingdoms. So long as the genus was legitimately published at inception, then new discoveries about the constituent species require only that the generic diagnosis be emended (but obviously in such a way that does not exclude the type species). Species other than the type species can be moved into and out of a genus as new information on them becomes available. An interesting difference between the ICBN and ICZN is that the genus is fixed by a type species in the Zoo code, whereas it is fixed by a single specimen in the Botanical Code. Contrary to the belief of many, the concept of type species does not exist in the Botanical Code. Regards, Martin. >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 Martin J. Head Department of Geography University of Cambridge Downing Place, Cambridge CB2 3EN ENGLAND, U.K. Phone: (01223) 339751 Fax: (01223) 333392 Email: mh300@cam.ac.uk Home page: http://www.geog.cam.ac.uk/people/head ====================================================================
Partial index: