Holotype of Homo sapiens

einstein's brain and Lukich's body with unknown primary descriptions and no taxon indication are valid ?

Maybe the skull of Carl Linnaeus?

Maybe the skull of Carl Linnaeus?

I have heard that such a proposal has already been considered seriously, but only all the remaining bones of Linnaeus ' skeleton were considered. But somehow the case stalled...
Well, once the topic has been created, then it (the topic) should be "interrupted" by the "Homo sapiens LECTOTYPE", or-create a time machine...

This post was edited by palvasru4ko - 08.03.2011 01: 37

and include insects in the class, so that the topic cannot be transferred

Вервес Ю.Г., Корнєєв В.О. 2007.
Типовий экземпляр Homo sapiens (до 300-річчя від дня народження Карла Ліннея) // Bulletin of Zoology, 41(3): 195-196. [In Ukrainian]
http://sites.google.com/site/nosferatumyia...fs/Linnaeus.pdf

The post was edited by Shoffer-08.03.2011 03: 27

Well, sho, jokes are jokes, and Linnaeus described himself! Who will indicate the lectotype? Available for study!

It's a mess. Read the Code carefully. In cases where the designation of the lectotype does not affect the successful diagnosis - the species is well known even without it - such a designation of the lectotype may even be rejected by the Commission.

the species is well known even without it - such a designation of the lectotype may even be rejected by the Commission.

that's if Negroes were a separate subspecies... but this is not politically correct...

Heh. My head wasn't working too well this morning. everything is much easier here. If Linnaeus established the species based on his own favorite, then there is a holotype by monotype, and the selection of the lectotype is not required.

It turns out wrong.
I looked at myself in the mirror or something and said "well, everything is just like people" and the species does not need a lectotype or holotype?
And how many species without a holotype and all that, which turn out to be another long-known species, and they have to be written off as synonyms, having only a description, because the type material is lost?
Or how to distinguish Elena from Icarus, if there was no type of Icarus? Like, and here everything is already clear, Icarus is Icarus and there is nothing to show off?

Thus, the Satyr as a species exists - it is described quite well and everyone understands what it is, and there is no garbage that there is no typical material. And who will say that these works are not serious, I will say that scientific works are not serious. No, well what is it, I'm deeply disappointed in ... a person. Or in whom I am disappointed, there is not even such a view, who can I call myself now?

What is the problem? Go to any medical university at the Department of anatomy and choose. Already prepared, as a rule.
Please forgive me for my cynicism.

And now, if tomorrow "humanity" wakes up not the same and will actually be a new species, then no one will know about it, since they will not be able to check it except by looking at the description, concluding "well, everything is just like people" .

What is the problem? Go to any medical university at the Department of anatomy and choose. Already prepared, as a rule.
I apologize for my cynicism.

Not seriously, this isn't standard material. This is the same as if I find a new species in my apartment and call it a new one based on the fact that I have a couple of other non-similar ones in the box that are similar in description to..

demagogue

not quite in the theme, but beautiful
http://images.yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%D...%B0&stype=image

http://le-distrait.livejournal.com/11954.html

Then there is the question of who described the female H. sapiens and when?

In general, it is still an open question - whether this skull is recognized, whether one skull is enough (if there are a bunch of whole copies of to)

Who is well versed in hominid taxonomy? Probably these questions have been solved for a long time...

In a nutshell, the situation with the Homo sapiens type is as follows. Linnaeus described 4 subspecies of Homo sapiens europaeus, H. sapiens afer, H. sapiens asiaticus, and H. sapiens americanus, naturally without specifying the type specimens. This list should also include the nominative subspecies H. sapiens sapiens, the type specimens of which are those of the species. The diagnosis of a nominative human subspecies is the diagnosis of the species, with the exception of the distinctive features of the 4 subspecies described by Linnaeus. Moreover, Linnaeus himself corresponds to the diagnosis of H. sapiens sapiens, and not H. sapiens europaeus, since the latter is characterized by yellow thick hair and blue eyes (Pilis flavescentibus, prolixis. Oculis caeruleis), while Linnaeus himself had brown hair and eyes (Tullberg, 1907). This is not mentioned in the original description, but according to Article 72.4.1.1 of the ICZN, in this case any information can be used when establishing a model series. Since the diagnosis of the species was made on the basis of a large number of people known to Linnaeus, including himself, they all form the type series H. sapiens sapiens, with the exception of specimens that meet the diagnoses of 4 Linnean subspecies. It remains only to select the lectotype from this typical series. This was done in 1959 by Swedish botanist William Stern. Naturally, he designated Linnaeus himself as the lectotype. The fact that Linnaeus ' remains are not kept in any museum, but are buried in Uppsala Cathedral and are not available for study does not make it invalid to designate him as a lectotype (see article 74.4 of the ICZN). Becker's designation of the remains of Edward Copa as a neotype is nothing more than a newspaper hoax, based on Louis Psykhoyos ' report in his book about dinosaurs (1994) that Becker suggests doing so. There is no publication by Becker himself on this subject. Moreover, there is no need to designate a neotype for H. sapiens, since the remains of Linnaeus are still available in principle, and there are no difficulties in objectively determining the nominative taxon (Article 75.1).

This post was edited by Tentator - 10.10.2012 21: 44

In addition, Edward Drinker Kop can not be included in the standard series, so he was born in 1840.

In addition, Edward Drinker Kop can not be included in the standard series, so he was born in 1840.

A cop could only be a neotype even if the taxonomic status of Homo sapiens had to be clarified and it could be proved that the designated lectotype is not available for study (Linnaeus ' remains cannot be exhumed for ethical reasons, and the Cop bequeathed his body to science). And the neotype does not necessarily have to be from the standard series. Of course, according to Codex recommendation 75A, the neotype should be some exhumed minor 18th-century Swede who was best known to Linnaeus. There would be one problem with a cop : the Code requires that the neotype come from as close to the type locality as possible. But although the Cop was born in the United States, his ancestors were originally from England, then, according to Article 76.1.1, if he was designated as a neotype, the type locality would be considered England, not so far removed from Sweden.

The question arose: according to the requirement of the ICZN, it is necessary to fulfill all formal requirements. Otherwise, the person as a species will not be valid!

Why would it be invalid?! The requirement to indicate the holotype or syntype only applies to species and subspecies described after 1999

The situation with the nomenclatural type of homo sapiens is described in detail in the recently published article by Gapon D. A. "Typical" person from the position of zoological nomenclature. 2012, issue 4. pp. 100-114 (see attached file).

This post was edited by Tentator - 11.10.2012 02: 24

File/s:



 helovek_4_12_gapon.pdf

size: 369.28 k
number of downloads: 718

by the way, while analyzing the Viennese collections of water beetles, which are full of holotypes, I also asked myself this question, not knowing that Liney described himself