| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
|
Ken 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. This is a common
problem in all taxonomic groups and is dealt with successfully on a daily
basis. 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). Your
colleague does not know what he/she is talking about. 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? Yes. The
specific name is attached in perpetuity to the holotype
specimen, or to the lectotype if there is initially
no specimen identified as a holotype. It does not matter
what happens to that specimen later. Whether it is synonymised with another
species, assigned to another genus, found to be part of a larger organism, is
immaterial. That specific name belongs with that specimen. 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? Yes, you are
right. The ICZN is not explicit on many possible scenarios, but the correct procedure
is implicit in the framing of the rules. 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. This does
not complicate things much at all. Again, it is a scenario that occurs every
day. Not all genera now recognised are based on newly discovered specimens of previously
unknown species. Palaeontologists have been subdividing genera since Linnaeus
fell of his perch. My colleague would say, in a similar fashion, that the genus name is redundant, because its original
definition is incorrect. Your
colleague hasn’t been taking his/her tablets! Whether someone’s
work is incorrect is a matter of opinion. Someone may in future come along and
decide that your fish specimens all belong to the same species and that you misconstrued
metamorphosis for interspecific difference. Again, ICZN doesn't explicitly address an issue [such] 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? Yes. The genus
is attached to the type species, similar to the way the species is attached to
the holotype. Even if someone synonymises that
species with another, the generic name adheres to that type species. This is
because, the synonymy is simply an opinion and some later worker may come along
and decide that the synonymy is incorrect! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eastern and Onshore Petroleum GEOSCIENCE Street Address: ABN 80 091 799 039 |
Partial index: