[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Type material: does it have to look pretty?
In a message dated 97-12-01 13:46:06 EST, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
<< So what happens to the 'type' of the absorbed species?>>
When a describer finds that two different species are really one and the
same, the type specimen of the older-named species remains the holotype, and
the name of the species is the older name. The type specimen of the newer
species remains the type specimen of the newer species, but it is referred to
the older species--it's just another referred specimen--and the newer species
becomes a junior subjective synonym of the older species. If it happens that
a later worker realizes that the two species are different after all, the
type specimen of the newer species is removed from referral to the older
species, and the newer species name is removed from synonymy, and the species
once again becomes a distinct, standalone species.
<< Since it (lets call it the haraldosaur type specimen) used to have
features enough to identify it as the prior species (haraldosaurs) and
from the newly-absorbing species (geraldosaurs sounds good), when the two
tucked in under geraldosaur shouldn't the diagnostic set of features from
type of heraldosaur remain as a type specimen?...>>
"Diagnostic features" aren't "a type specimen." If, when a newer species is
synonymized with an older species, the newer species has diagnostic features
that were not known in the older species, they may become part of the overall
species diagnosis (or they may be disregarded, or both).