Paleonet: Holotypes

[Jere H. Lipps]

Hi All:

No paleontologist, not Laurie, me or anyone else, is saying that we 
need a complete organism for a holotype.  Parts of specimens are ok, 
or the majority of fossil species are invalid.  Just in my small 
circle of paleo-friends, a walrus humerous, a single coccolith (under 
ICZN rules), a complete articulated skeleton of a sea lion, several 
whole specimens representing the entire life cycle of a foram 
species, a cephalon, a tooth, single valve of a clam, a crushed 
skull, a sclerite off some critter, a hole made by an unknown animal, 
etc, have been designated as holotypes.  Open any paleo journal and 
you'll see parts as holotypes.  Holes, burrows, scratch marks, etc, 
are also acceptable under the Code.  The discussion is not about 
parts (or just evidence of behavior) as holotypes.

Laurie and I have set up end-member cases for discussion.  He (and I) 
would prefer a complete skeleton (2 valves, all the sclerites, bones, 
etc).  We differ in that I would allow a part (single valve, 
sclerite, life cycle stage or thin-section) of an organism to be 
designated as the holotype even when we have a complete individual in 
hand, if that part clearly shows the diagnostic characters of my 
species concept, or if there is the slightest doubt that the elements 
are not from the same individual. Laurie wants the whole thing 
designated and possibly allows for less doubt than I would.  We are 
both correct under the Code, because an author has the lee-way to 
make his own judgements.  That is exactly as it should be because the 
ICZN rules do not do science, they only keep it sorted out so we all 
understand.  I am happy with Laurie's views.   I understand them, and 
would go along with his approach often in actual practice.  I am not 
critical of that approach--it's the best, but I allow for finer 
definition just to protect the concept of the author.  On the science 
side, it makes no difference because all parts should be studied by 
the author and subsequent authors and no holotype truly represents a 
species completely anyway.   A species hypothesis is much more than 
the holotype. They only come into play in nomenclatorial problems, 
which don't come up that often.

Everyone has an opinion (at least around my museum and on PaleoNet), 
and they are entitled to them.  But you are not entitled to tell me 
how to select my own holotypes, as long as I comply with the Rules, 
because that mixes your judgements with mine, and of course, I like mine best.

It's all been blown out of proportion and grumpy-ness has crept 
in.  I trust that all of you are doing your best in the selection 
of  holotypes no matter what they are.  As long as you are clear 
about how you make your judgements and the evidence you present 
supports those judgements, I am happy.  Doesn't mean your taxon is 
biologically meaningful, but it is valid under the Code for 
nomenclatorial purposes.

Thanks to all for your indulgence in tolerating this discussion over 
a couple of long periods of time.   I think it (or at least me) has 
run its course now.

Jere