[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Type of *Homo sapiens* was Re: Sauropod museums in New England
> I don't remember when the ICZN published that Opinion, but it was
> several years ago in any case.
John Wilkins writes to inform me that there's never been an Opinion because
there never was a question. http://iczn.org/content/who-type-homo-sapiens
Accidentally or not, William Stearns validly selected Linnaeus as the lectotype
in 1959 simply by writing "Linnaeus himself [...] must stand as the type of his
*Homo sapiens*". That's enough (Article 74.5).
Cope wouldn't even be eligible as a lectotype (Art. 72.4), but could only be a
neotype, and a neotype can't be erected when the lectotype doesn't need to be
Incidentally, while Linnaeus named several subspecies, he didn't name the one
he automatically belongs to (*H. s. sapiens*), and he definitely didn't
consider himself part of his *H. s. europaeus*: he had brown hair and brown
eyes, but diagnosed *H. s. europaeus* as "with blond [...] hair and blue eyes".