Talk:Type (biology)

A note

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)

I liked your sentence and have included it (slightly modified) in the introduction. Invertzoo (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2010 (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)

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. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 16:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

A look at the page history shows that this page did not come about by an intent to inform the reader about the topic "Biological type", which would be well worth a page of its own, but to get the pages type (botany) and type (zoology) out of the way. - Dendrid (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Homo sapiens

Is any known type specimen or type series ? Also for H. s. s ?76.16.176.166 (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There definitely is a type for Homo sapiens, it is Carl Linnaeus, he was designated as the lectotype in 1959 by Professor William Stearn. There is an excellent paper by Spamer (1999) which explains the whole situation. See http://www.jstor.org/stable/4065043. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.140.1.72 (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually had to check the month of publication ! Thanks ! Shyamal (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Operational taxonomic unit

Operational taxonomic unit redirects to this page, yet there is no definition or explanation of what an OTU is in this article. I would argue that perhaps OTU should have its own article, but at the very least it should be defined in this article since it redirects here. 67.164.175.18 (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Introductory text

I added some words to the introduction to more colloqually explain types and in particular their importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.193.179.135 (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hard to understand

The following section is extremely hard to understand and is written in a confusing way. I am currently trying to rewrite it to make it clearer.

"Types fix names to taxa by the following rule: you name your taxon according to the oldest name of the type specimens that it includes. If your taxon circumscription includes a type specimen, then the name on that type specimen becomes the name of your taxon. If more than one, then the oldest name takes precedence and becomes the name of your taxon. If your taxon does not include any type specimen, then you must pick a type specimen, dub it with a new name."

Invertzoo (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a go at completely rewriting this. I believe I have improved it, but I am more than willing to have others improve it further. Invertzoo (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

terra typica restricta

The above term is often seen, while its meaning may not be clear to all. A clarification of a restricted type locality may be useful in this article. JMK (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, especially because the term "type locality" crossreferences to this WP article.98.111.224.50 (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

First use

Types are demanded since 1961. When were types used firstly? Are they used since the start of modern taxonomy in 1758 or sometimes since 19 century? When was the first usage of this word (or "concept" if used in another language) and who was the first? --Snek01 (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure, but I think the concept of a "type" derives ultimately from the creationist concept of "created kinds": there would be a typical form of each "kind", and "degenerated" forms. Of course, we no longer believe that, but it remains useful to anchor a taxon on one child taxon. Judging from Google Books snippets, Mayr (1953) probably has some discussion of this matter. Ucucha 22:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

According to George Gaylord Simpson (1961, Principles of Animal Taxonomy, pp. 47–50), the concept of a "type" goes back even further, to Platonic philosophy. According to this philosophy, every taxon has an underlying pattern, the type (i.e., the Platonic "idea"). For early biologists who adhered to this school of thought, the type of a taxon could be represented by a subtaxon or specimen that embodied the characters of that taxon, the root of the current, nomenclatural type. Later, the two became disentangled, and now "type" only has the nomenclatural meaning. Simpson is not precise about the chronology of all this. Ucucha 22:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, when was it firstly used in nomenclatural meaning? --Snek01 (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The lead paragraph

The lead paragraph doesn't fit the name of the page, it deals only with type specimens. The type species of a genus, for example is not covered. In botany at least, we have situations where the type species of a genus has been established, but the type specimen for that type species still needs work (lectotypification, for example). Nadiatalent (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)