Talk:Holotype

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Holotype 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.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Perhaps reference to the official definitions will be more clear about this - but there is a subtle difference betweeen how a neotype is defined in this article and how it is defined in biological types - Marshman 20:33, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] human

Who is the human holotype? 86.9.73.56 16:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What a great question. So sorry no one bothered to answer you sooner. Only specimens named after 1931 are required to have holotypes, so there might not be one. I will have to search around and see if I can find out what the holotype for Homo sapiens sapiens Linnaeus 1758 is. Thanks for posing the question. KP Botany 19:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've come across the statement that it is Carolus Linnaeus himself, but don't know if this is a formal designation or just someone's joke - MPF 13:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we know he's responsible for the original description, so if he's the holotype, it must have been one of the one's added later, you know the mistake-o-correctiontype made a holotype because there's a missing holotype. Conceptually interesting if it's him, where's he housed? I'll look up his grave. I did ask the ICZN folk, hopefully they answer. I will certainly post if I find out. Still, it's a shame such a brilliant question was ignored for so long. This is one thing about encyclopedias, what is fundamental knowledge? I read articles all the time and find things included I never thought of asking. KP Botany 18:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no actual holotype for H. sapiens. There are a few people who have recently attempted to designate them (the most notorious case involves E.D. Cope's skull), but these designations were not validly done. Article 75.3 of the ICZN Code explicitly states there must be "an exceptional need" and the express purpose of "clarifying the taxonomic status". There is ZERO ambiguity about the identity of our own species, so we do not NEED to have a holotype. Since we do not need a type specimen, no one is allowed to designate one. That is how the code is written, and - quite significantly - WHY it is written that way; to avoid unscientific non-issues like "Who is the holotype of Homo sapiens?

However, this is not the code, this is Wikipedia. Article 75.3 explicity states there must be "an exceptional need" for what? For designation of a holotype when one does not exist? For using a holotype at all in zoology? You're missing part of your sentence. So, were holotypes not used for animal species in the 18th century? Are they a modern aspect of zoology? Are they used now for zoology? Weren't Linnaeus's original specimens used for describing the species the holotypes for various other species? Does it say that in the code, that the purpose for requiring a that there be an exception need to clarify taxonomic status is because unscientific non-issues might arise? It seems that taxonomy might be immune to this, as most non-taxonomists would not be in the position of demanding the designation of a holotype. KP Botany 22:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

An exceptional need for clarification of a species' identity. In other words, there must be two taxa which are believed to be distinct, and one of which presumably belongs to the taxon which has no holotype. A holotype is needed in such a case to "fix" the species concept, but there is no requirement that species (described prior to 2000) must have a holotype. There are hundreds of species described prior to 2000 in existence which have no holotype and never will, because no one is confused about their identity. We haven't discovered another species of humans which might be confused with H. sapiens (without a designated type to compare to), so no neotype can be validly designated. Linnaeus did not refer to any identifiable specimen(s) in his description of H. sapiens, nor did several other early zoologists at various times - the whole concept of a holotype appeared much, much later. So, (1) even though Stearn designated that Linnaeus himself was the "lectotype", this was technically incorrect (a lectotype can only be designated from among a syntype series), and (2) Bakker never did publish a paper declaring Cope's skull as the type, and (3) the present Code prohibits any future designations from being recognized. Thus, no validly-designated type for our species exists, or is possible, because we really don't NEED one. Dyanega 16:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

PS Thanks for pointing to the Cope article. KP Botany 22:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] confusing

As this is phrased to cover more than one Code of nomenclature, this remains a nightmare, full of confusing weasel words. It really should be split. Brya 08:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)