Paleonet: Homo sapiens

[Pojeta, John]

I'm not sure of Cope, but I know that some years ago, and mostly in
jest, it was suggested that Linnaeus should be made the lectotype.

 

John

 

pojetaj at si.edu 

 

________________________________

From: paleonet-bounces+pojetaj=si.edu at nhm.ac.uk
[mailto:paleonet-bounces+pojetaj=si.edu at nhm.ac.uk] On Behalf Of John
VanRegenmorter
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 9:47 PM
To: PaleoNet
Subject: Re: Paleonet: Homo sapiens

 

I thought I heard somewhere that E.D. Cope was named the lectotype.

John VanRegenmorter

> To: paleonet at nhm.ac.uk
> From: Pierre.Kruse at nt.gov.au
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:58:37 +0930
> Subject: Paleonet: Homo sapiens
> 
> What surprises me regarding Homo sapiens is that, since Linnaeus
established the
> species, nobody (apparently) has nominated a lectotype. If this were
done, it
> would (provided the publication met all requirements of the Code) have
to be
> treated as a legitimate nomenclatural act, as with any other lectotype
> nomination.
> Pierre
> _______________________________
> Dr PD Kruse
> Northern Territory Geological Survey
> PO Box 3000, Darwin NT 0801, Australia
> Tel: (8) 8999 5451 Fax: (8) 8999 6824
> Web: http://www.nt.gov.au/dpifm/Minerals_Energy/Geoscience/
> 
> 
> 
> "Jere H. Lipps" 
> <jlipps at berkeley.ed 
> u> To 
> Sent by: PaleoNet <paleonet at nhm.ac.uk> 
> paleonet-bounces+pi cc 
> erre.kruse=nt.gov.a 
> u at nhm.ac.uk Subject 
> Re: Paleonet: two parts of holotype? 
> 
> 09/02/2008 12:38 PM 
> 
> 
> Please respond to 
> PaleoNet 
> <paleonet at nhm.ac.uk 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 12:06 AM 2/8/2008, you wrote:
> >At 06:11 07.02.2008, you wrote:
> > > >
> > > >The status of type (holotype, lectotype, etc)
> > > >falls on the individual, not in any of its
> > > >parts. LV and RV are both parts of the same holotype
> > >
> > >Absolutely right. But a later investigator could
> > >decide they were from different individuals and
> > >restrict the holotype to one valve ...
> >
> >In that case the two valves did not belong to one individual and
their
> >joined designation as the holotype was wrong, i.e. they were both
syntypes
> >(and so was the third specimen originally designated as a paratype),
and
> >the later reviewer chose one valve as the lectotype.
> >
> >Kind regards
> >fjl
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Franz-Josef Lindemann
> >Natural History Museum, University of Oslo
> >P.O.Box 1172 Blindern, NO-0318 Oslo
> >Phone: +47 22 85 16 59
> >Fax: +47 22 85 18 00
> >visiting address: Sars' gate 1, NO-0562 Oslo
> >
> 
> Correct, that is the way I should have worded my remark about
> restricting the holotype--it then becomes a lectotype under these
> circumstances.
> Of course, the subsequent investigator could still be wrong in
> his/her opinion and the original author deemed correct, hence the
> retention of the original designation of the specimens as the
> holotype (syntypes, actually). These things happen all the time.
> This case also illustrates the reason that a single element should be
> designated as a holotype rather than more than one. If you are sure
> that two valves came from the same individual, it's still a good idea
> to designate one as the holotype and the other as a paratype to avoid
> future controversies and problems. A rational paleontologist may
> not have any trouble with your two paired valves, but not all people
> see things that way.
> And it does no harm to systematics or biology to do it that way,
> since we would have the other valve designated as an associated
> paratype. A holotype is seldom representative of the entire
> population or populations, and is only a reference point about a
> scientist's best judgement. Think about humans--which of us would
> be the best holotype? Linneaus and Edward Drinker Cope thought that
> they were the best examples of humanity
> (
>
http://fishfeet2007.blogspot.com/2007/04/arrogant-scientist-wants-to-rep
resent.html
> ).
> Perhaps Homo sapiens is best left without a holotype.
> We've been over all of this recently. No question that the Rules can
> be complex and intertwined, but they are not about biology, only book
> keeping.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Paleonet mailing list
> Paleonet at nhm.ac.uk
> http://mailman.nhm.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/paleonet
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Paleonet mailing list
> Paleonet at nhm.ac.uk
> http://mailman.nhm.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/paleonet

________________________________

Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we
give. Learn more.
<http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.nhm.ac.uk/pipermail/paleonet/attachments/20080211/2f1fdfec/attachment.htm