Talk:Biological type

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Biological type is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This does not look right to me. Why go into so much detail, without trying to get it right? The present page definitely is inaccurate where plants is concerned. The way types are handled in the ICBN is quite complex.

Probably the requirements for animals are quite different from those for plants and probably those for Bacteria are too. Looks like this page will have to be split two or more ways before it can even begin to be corrected. PvR Sep 2005

Is it really accurate to state that a type binds a name to a taxon? Would it be better to say that a type is a representative example that helps anchor or centralize the defining features for a taxon? Myron 20:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, the problem is that if a statement is to be true for the ICBN, ICZN and ICNB it has to be checked against all three. Rules on types are very complicated and it is hard enough to phrase it so it is true for one Code, let alone all three. Splitting this looks more appealing all the time. Brya 18:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I tried and removed everything that purported to refer to botany. However, I am not at all confident that what remains is true, even for zoology only. Maybe it was accurate for an earlier edition of the ICZN, but not for this one ? Brya 19:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

This should not be a disambiguation page. There is no reason to have seperate type articles for botany and zoology. This will also fix all of the "biological type" links that point here. --Selket Talk 05:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. Certainly this is almost useless as a disambiguation page. A non-specialist would have great difficulty using this page to locate the correct article to find more information about a particular biological type classification, because this page relies on acronyms and terminology that themselves require explanation. --Russ (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Hundreds of links here? Let's fix the problem the easiest way. — Pious7TalkContribs 16:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isotype?

Of the various 'types' mentioned here, there is no mention of what an "isotype" is, except, perhaps, the "isoneotype" that is mentioned as an unregulated and unofficial permutation. There is a disambiguation page for various uses of the word "isotype", and it states that "In biology, per the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, the "Isotype" is a duplicate of the holotype." But, neither the ICBN page linked to nor the holotype page link to have any mention of "isotype", as near as I can tell.

The rules for many different "types" are give in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (VIENNA CODE)(2006), particularly Article 9 ( online at http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/frameset/0013Ch2Sec2a009.htm ), but it is a little beyond my time and abilities to try to sort it all out, currently.

An example of an isotype usage I am dealing with is a collection at the Nationaal Herbarium Nederland (National Herbarium of the Netherlands, NHN) for Tetractomia majus ( http://145.18.162.53:81/c8?ent=300017&rec=16133&sct=1 ). I was a looking at "Random pages" and seeing if I could expand a article or add a link.

--MatthewBChambers 23:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bacteria and fungi

I know they are different, but somene might wonder why they are not included - the reason should be given. At least, there shold be a reference or statement about types in these other organisms (including virus, phage, archeobacter, etc)Cinnamon colbert (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)