Re typification of a plant genus if only a single species is/was contained in that genus (ICN Art. 40.3): Is that mode of designation "by original designation" or "by monotypy"? I am not sure whether the concept of typification by monotypy exists in botany (glossary has zero hits on "monotypy").
Even if typification by monotypy is not explicitly stated in ICN/Thurland, is it used in systematic botany? Or is this another distinction between ICN-Botany and ICZN-Zoology?
Please note, that the question is not the description of a genus with a single species (monotypic genus), but the mode of typification.
Thanks!
Art. 10.1. The type of a name of a genus or of any subdivision of a genus is the type of a name of a species (except as provided by Art. 10.4). For purposes of designation or citation of a type, the species name alone suffices, i.e. it is considered as the full equivalent of its type (see also Rec. 40A.3).
Note 1. Terms such as “holotype”, “syntype”, and “lectotype”, as presently defined in Art. 9, although not applicable to the types of names at ranks higher than species, have sometimes been so used by analogy.
In the context of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN), if a genus is described with only one species at the time of its establishment, the typification process is effectively achieved through what can be understood as 'monotypy,' although this specific term is not explicitly used within the ICN itself. The concept is closely aligned with the principle that the only species included in the original genus description automatically serves as the type species for that genus.
Article 40.3 of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) does not explicitly mention 'monotypy' because botanical nomenclature traditionally does not use this term in the same way as zoological nomenclature does within the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). However, the principle is implicitly acknowledged through the practices of typification in botany. This situation occurs when a single species within a genus automatically becomes the type species, without an explicit designation by the author. This process operates similarly to the zoological concept of 'typification by monotypy.'
Therefore, although the ICN does not explicitly use the term 'monotypy,' the process of determining a type when a genus is described with a single species still adheres to the principle of monotypy. The lack of the term 'monotypy' in the ICN glossary or text does not invalidate its application in these situations. The process is not explicitly named but understood, highlighting a subtle difference in terminology between botanical and zoological nomenclature systems.
An example of the principle of 'monotypy' in botanical nomenclature, although not explicitly named as such in the ICN, can be seen with the genus Eschscholzia.
When Adelbert von Chamisso established the genus in 1820, Eschscholzia californica was the only species described. As it was the only species included in the original description of the genus, it automatically served as the type species for Eschscholzia. This scenario illustrates the principle of typification by monotypy in practice. When a newly described genus includes only one species, that species becomes the type by default, even if this concept is not explicitly named as such within the framework of the ICN.
This automatic designation occurs because the genus was described based on a single species, and no further action was required to designate the type species. The absence of a specific term for this process in the ICN does not alter the fundamental principle that the type species is established by the initial inclusion of a single species within the new genus during its description.
Phil Käding Thanks for all those details above and beyond! I like your Eschscholzia example, currently coming up in my yard!
Subir Bandyopadhyay There are certainly HT/ST parallels at genus-level. Also with lectotypification of genera, where LT species has to be from amongst the species listed in protologue of genus (i.e., "syntype" species; though I have never seen it expressed that way). The thinking is similar.
Daniel L. Geiger Daniel, This is a quote from a longer publication by Alain DUBOIS in BIONOMINA. (see link below) "A good example of term using the root “type” is monotypy*. This term is particularly confusing, as it conveys two widely different meanings in taxonomy and nomenclature. It is sometimes used in the taxonomic literature to designate a taxon that includes a single subordinate* taxon or no subordinate taxon at all: thus the term ‘‘monotypic’’ is sometimes applied to designate a genus with a single species or a species that does not include subspecies. With this meaning, the term “monotypy” refers to a taxonomic concept. But this term is used in the Code in a different sense, to designate a nomenclatural concept, i.e., a mode of designation of onomatophore for a nominal taxon, either in the genus-series (Art. 68.3 and 69.3) or in the species-series (Art. 73.1.2). This confusion is illustrated for example by stating that a ‘‘monotypic’’ species (i.e., without subspecies) can well bear a nomen that relies on a holophoront* fixed by original designation, or on symphoronts* among which no lectophoront* was ever designated, i.e., two situations that do not correspond to ‘‘monotypy’’ in the sense of the Code. This confusion is avoided by using the terms monohypotaxy* and anhypotaxy* for the taxonomic concepts (Dubois & Raffaëlli 2009: 11–12), and monophory* (Dubois, 2005c: 404) for the nomenclatural concept. The fact that this confusion has been entertained until now in all the literature points to the little care given by taxonomists and the ICZN to terminological problems, which certainly contributes to problems in communication.
Link for PDF of the article......
https://www.biotaxa.org/Bionomina/article/view/163/255
Lee Clawson Thanks. Re Alan Dubois and his Linz Code, no thanks. As always, he makes it more difficult, therefore more "scientific", than it needs to be. His whole emphasis that the same word can not be used twice in different contexts is more than questionable. Adding a whole lot of verbiage is not helping the matter. Let's focus on real issues, namely revising taxa, rooting out synonymies, describing truly undescribed species, making a classification composed of clades.
Daniel L. Geiger Daniel, RE: Alan Dubois and his Linz Code. - Happy you feel this way. I agree. Couldn't read Dubois. But haven't found anything else thats closer to what you want. My plan is to look (back) at Edward Tufte and similar work on visual presentation of data and information. My instinct is the thinking that goes into a visual presentation of complex data-information might be useful. - And its my best guess.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Books