[tcs-lc] selective quotes from Rich

[Richard Pyle]

>    I did a  bit of modern politics here with selective quoting
> out of context (thanks, Mr. K. Rove).

:-)

> This is borderline petty;
> but, I think by and large your position does not negate my point
> that certain Code-prescribed acts are open to conceptual
> interpretation, new typifications being among them.

When you say "new typifications", I assume you mean only lectotypes and
neotypes?  Or do you mean more than that?

> Nico wrote:
> If it turns out that some "Code-prescribed acts" are open to (or
> even require) such a conceptual reading, how do we treat them in
> the TCS-LC context?
>
> *Subjective:* judgments about the availability and validity of
> names that are prescribed by the Codes only because of a new
> assessment of taxonomic relationships; relationships among names
> that involve statements about the taxonomic identity of at least
> two type specimens; the new assessment alters the status of an
> old (and otherwise compliant) name and thus requires the creation
> of a new name/specimen link.

"Two" type specimens -- yes. The only time you can have two primary types
for one name (in zoology) is when you have syntypes.  In Zoology, one
usually leaves syntypes as collectively the "primary" type, until such time
as there is a need to pin down one of them and designate it as a lectotype.
In other words, as long as *everyone's* concept circumscription encompases
all syntypes in a syntype series, then there is no urgency for
leptotypification.

> Selective quotes from Rich's response to the earlier exchange:
>
> "Properties of concept objects involve defining the
> size/shape/position of the "circle" that circumscribes a set of
> organisms into one concept.  These are what I think of when Nico
> references "subjective" taxonomic information."
>
> "There is no doubt, as Paul has said, that the concept preceeds the name."
>
> "Accordingly, there is no doubt that for every name that is
> intended to be established in accordance with the Codes of
> nomenclature, there is an implied concept circumscription of
> organisms beyond the type specimen of the name."
>
> "So pretty-much by definition, a true lectotypification event
> requires no subjective interpretation -- other than the inference
> that the candidate lectotype was indeed examined by the original
> describer, and indeed considered *by that person* as among the
> material representative of the taxon."
>
> "Indeed, the neotype designation *does* require subjective
> interpretation about concept circumscriptions when typified."
>
> "...but this is not really an issue about defining the size or
> shape of any concept circumscription "circle" (though it does
> arguably have an impact on the "position" of the circle)."
>
> "I agree for neotypes, but not necessarily lectotypes."
>
> "In fact, I think the main reason that ICZN provides
> recommendations (instead of Articles) is for cases that involve
> subjective interpretations of concept circumscriptions."

Yes, and I still agree with all of these statements, and though they may
seem contradictory, they follow the same logical paradigm that I have been
advocating:

[Name-object] is linked to a [Type specimen] via a nomenclatural act, and
the [Type Specimen] is but one member of [Concept circumscription], the
size/shape/position of which may take many different forms by many different
authors, and assigned to the same [Name-object], provided they all intersect
at least at the [Type specimen].

The bracketed entites each have their own set of properties:

[Name-object] Properties:
	- Rank-group it is established as (Family-group, Genus-group,
Species-group)
	- Publication in which it was established
	- Specific date on which it was established
	- Authorship team credited for the name
	- Original orthography
	- Nomenclatural relationships with other [Name-objects]
		* Type Species relationship fro Genus-group names
		* Type genus relationship for Family-group names
		* Original Genus (=combination) for species-group names
		* Homonym names
		* Homotypic names
	- Inclusion on "Official ICZN List" (ICZN)
	- Inclusion on "Official ICZN Index" (ICZN)
	- Application of rules of latin grammar (e.g. gender matching)
	- Plenary power decisions by the Commission
	- Typification Act (the actual act of fixing the type)
	- etc.

[Type-Specimen] Properties:
	- Date of collection
	- Locality at which it was collected
	- Museum catalog number
	- Collector team
	- Collector method
	- Many different character states
	- Method of preservation
	- etc. [see ABCD]

[Concept circumscription] Properties:
	- Publication or other documented Agent-Team/DateStamp event that implied
it or attempted to define it ("AccordingTo").
	- Set of voucher specimens included as part of the definition
	- First-party-established relationships with other concepts (includes,
congruent, excludes, etc.)
	- Third-party-established relationships with other concepts (includes,
congruent, excludes, etc.)
	- Set of zero-to-many primary type specimens of [Name-Objects] included
within the circumscription
	- etc.

So yes, of course, primary type specimens are relevant to both
[Name-objects] (via Typification events), and to [Concept circumscriptions]
(to help determine which name to apply to the concept) -- as I have always
maintained.  So I can understand the potential "turf" battle between
concepts and names for whom the Type Specimens "most belong to".

But as for Lectotypes and Neotypes, I refer you first to Article 61 of the
ICZN Code:

Article 61. Principle of Typification
(http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp?article=61)

Article 74 (http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp?article=74) deals with
Lectotypes, and Article 75 (http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp?article=74)
deals with Neotypes.  In essence, a Lectotype is drawn from the material
available to the original describer at the time of the description, and thus
was unambiguosly included within the original describer's concept
circumscription when the name was first proposed.  If a specimen was not
part of an original syntype series, it cannot be designated (or retain its
designation) as a lectotype (Article 74.2). If a subsequent person discovers
that an original syntype series includes specimens from what said person
regards to be more than one species, then the person gets to "play God" and
pick which one to fix the original name to.  But this highly subjective
decision does not carry over to the Act of leptotypification itself.  Once
lectotypified (according to the rules set forth in Article 74), it becomes a
property of the [Name-object] -- no matter which of several syntypes was
selected.  So even if a lectotypification event has important
concept-implications, that does not mean that the part of the act that is
relevant to the [Name-object] renders the name as equivalent to a concept.

Neotypes are made after the fact, and do require subjective interpretation
on the part of the person fixing the name to a specific specimen (and are
therefore more concept-dependant in the decision-making process).  But even
still, once the typification act happens, it becomes an unambiguous property
of the [Name-object], and does not in any way confude a [Name-object] with a
[Concept circumscription].

So....if you believe any of my statements that you quote above to be
inconsistent in any way, please let me know which ones, and I will explain
why my failing as a communicator via ASCII does not necessarily equate to
logical inconsistency.

Aloha,
Rich