Roger wrote: "Your inference is incorrect. Keep firmly fixed in your mind the concept of "type specimen", the one specimen that is the authoritative example of a taxon. No one cares if it reproduces sexually or asexually. Or even if it reproduces at all, for that matter." Roger, isn't that a bit of a red herring? I think you are confusing the rules of nomenclature with the insights provided by science in these matters. Science trumps the rules of nomenclature. When a taxonomist names a new plant, the decision about the rank to use should have nothing to do with the rules of nomenclature. To be sure, there have probably been taxonomists who wanted their discoveries to be regarded as species (more important, right?) than lower ranks. In fact there is an Agatha Christie Poirot episode which pokes fun at this venality in some taxonomists. The point is, the decision about the rank should be made on the basis of the available science. It's only when that is settled that an accurate determination of rank can be proposed. That traditional botanical taxonomy has relied on one variation or another of the type system has little to do with the issues I am pursuing. A type specimen might be the authoritative example of a taxon for nomenclatural purposes, but a type specimen will have a taxonomic rank, and if that rank is anything other than Individuum, then the taxonomist is proposing a hypothesis: for instance, "this individual type plant proves that such a plant exists; I am proposing that it is representative of a sexually reproducing population and thus should be published at rank species." The issue I have been pursuing in these discussions is the one which arises when the type is not only an individual plant (which is the usual course of events) but also a plant which does not correspond exactly to any existing sexually reproducing population, but whose relationship and derivation from some such population can be inferred from what we know about genetics. When you wrote "No one cares if it reproduces sexually or asexually. Or even if it reproduces at all, for that matter." I read that as an accurate description of nineteenth century taxonomy. I'm pretty sure our contemporaries in taxonomy are much better educated. Jim McKenney om: Rodger Whitlock <totototo@telus.net> To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [pbs] The "real' stoloniferous T. clusiana On 30 Mar 2015, at 20:12, Jim McKenney wrote: > Those ranks imply (to me anyway) sexually reproducing populations. Your inference is incorrect. Keep firmly fixed in your mind the concept of "type specimen", the one specimen that is the authoritative example of a taxon. No one cares if it reproduces sexually or asexually. Or even if it reproduces at all, for that matter. -- Rodger Whitlock Victoria, British Columbia, Canada Z. 7-8, cool Mediterranean climate _______________________________________________ pbs mailing list pbs@lists.ibiblio.org http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/