Source: http://iczn.ansp.org/wiki/Article67
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 02:58:42+00:00

Document:
67.1. Name-bearing types. The name-bearing type of a nominal genus or subgenus is a nominal species called the "type species" [Art. 42.3].
67.1.1. A nominal genus and its nominotypical subgenus [Art. 44.1] have the same type species [Art. 61.2].
67.1.2. The name of a type species remains unchanged even when it is a junior synonym or homonym, or a suppressed name (see Article 81.2.1).
Recommendation 67A. Terminology. Only the term "type species" or a strictly equivalent term in another language should be used in referring to the name-bearing type of a nominal genus or subgenus. To avoid ambiguity the term "genotype," which has widespread use in a different sense in genetics, should not be used instead of "type species."
Recommendation 67B. Citation of type species. The name of a type species should be cited by its original binomen. If the name of the type species is, or is currently treated as, an invalid name, authors may also cite its valid synonym.
Example. Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775, one of the nominal species originally included in the decapod crustacean genus Homarus Weber, 1795, was subsequently designated by Fowler (1912) as the type species of Homarus. The type species is, and should be cited as, Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775. Astacus marinus Fabricius is currently synonymized with Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758, but the latter is not the type species of Homarus and should not be cited as such. If mention of the type species is required it should be made in some such manner as "Type species Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775, a junior synonym of Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758"; or "Type species Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775, now regarded as a synonym of Homarus gammarus (Linnaeus, 1758)".
67.2. Species eligible for type fixation (originally included nominal species). A nominal species is only eligible to be fixed as the type species of a nominal genus or subgenus if it is an originally included nominal species.
67.2.1. In the meaning of the Code the "originally included nominal species" comprise only those included in the newly established nominal genus or subgenus, having been cited in the original publication by an available name (including citation by an incorrect spelling [Art. 67.6]) of a species or subspecies (see Articles 45.6 and 68.2), or having been cited there as the deliberate application of a previous misidentification (see Articles 11.10, 67.13 and 69.2.4).
67.2.2. If a nominal genus or subgenus was established before 1931 (in the case of an ichnotaxon, before 2000 [Art. 66.1]) without included nominal species [Art. 12], the nominal species that were first subsequently and expressly included in it are deemed to be the only originally included nominal species.
67.2.3. Mere reference in the original publication to a publication containing the name of a species does not by itself constitute an express reference of a nominal species to a nominal genus.
67.2.4. Mere citation of an available genus-group name as a synonym of another does not constitute inclusion of the nominal species of the latter in the former, or vice versa.
67.2.5. A nominal species is deemed not to be originally included if it was doubtfully or conditionally included, or was cited as a species inquirenda, or as a species incertae sedis.
67.3.2. which are the originally included nominal species in the meaning of Article 67.2 (see Article 67.2.2 for originally included species of genus-group nominal taxa established without species).
67.4. Type fixation. The type species of a nominal genus or subgenus is fixed originally if fixed in the original publication [Art. 68], or subsequently if fixed after the nominal genus or subgenus was established [Art. 69].
67.4.1. A nominal genus-group taxon established after 1930 (or, in the case of an ichnotaxon, after 1999 [Art. 66.1]) must have its type species fixed in the original publication [Art. 13.3].
67.5.3. one made in an ambiguous or conditional manner.
Examples. A statement such as any of the following is not to be regarded as a type designation in the meaning of the Code: "Aus xus is a typical example of the genus Aus"; "the venation of the anterior wings of Aus xus is typical of the genus Aus"; "Aus xus may possibly be the type of Aus".
67.6. Fixations using incorrect spellings or unjustified emendations. If the name of a type species, when fixed, is cited in the form of an incorrect spelling or an unjustified emendation, it is deemed to have been cited in its correct original spelling (see also Article 69.2.1).
67.7. Status of incorrect citations. If, in fixing the type species for a nominal genus or subgenus, an author wrongly attributes the name of the type species, or of the genus or subgenus, to an author or date other than that denoting its first establishment, or cites wrongly the first express inclusion of nominal species in that genus or subgenus, he or she is nevertheless to be considered, if the nominal species was otherwise eligible, to have validly fixed the type species. For previous misidentifications deliberately employed when fixing a type species, see Articles 11.10 and 67.13.
Example. Aus Dupont, 1790, established without a type species, is best known from the work of a later author, Smith (1810). If subsequently Bus xus is designated as the type species of "Aus Smith, 1810", that designation is to be accepted as a designation of the type species for Aus Dupont, 1790, providing Bus xus was eligible for designation as type species of the latter. Errors in attributing the authorship or date of Bus xus would also be immaterial.
67.8. Type species of nominal genus-group taxa denoted by new replacement names (nomina nova). If an author publishes a new genus-group name expressly as a new replacement name (nomen novum) for a previously established name, or replaces a previously established genus-group name by an unjustified emendation [Art. 33.2.3], both the prior nominal taxon and its replacement have the same type species, and type fixation for either applies also to the other, despite any statement to the contrary (see also Article 13.3).
67.8.1. The type species must be a nominal species eligible (see Article 67.2) for fixation as the type species of the prior nominal genus-group taxon.
Example. Bus Schmidt, 1890 was proposed expressly as a new replacement name (nomen novum) to replace a junior homonym, Aus Medina, 1880, non Dupont, 1860. If Cus xus is validly fixed as the type species of Aus Medina it is automatically the type species of Bus. If, on the other hand, no type species had been fixed for Aus Medina and Cus yus is validly fixed as the type species of Bus, it is also the type species of Aus Medina.
67.9. Misidentified type species. If a validly fixed type species is later found to have been misidentified, the provisions of Article 70.3 apply.
67.10. Union of nominal genus-group taxa. If two or more nominal genus-group taxa are included within a single taxonomic taxon at genus-group level, their respective type species remain unchanged (subject to Article 23, the valid name of the taxonomic taxon so formed is that of the nominal taxon with the oldest potentially valid name).
67.11. Nominal species that are already type species. The fact that a nominal species is the type species of a nominal genus or subgenus does not prevent it from being the type species of another. In such a case, the genus-group names are objective synonyms of one another [Art. 61.3.3].
67.12. Type species of nominal genera and subgenera first denoted by synonyms. If a genus-group name was first published in an available work as a synonym of another name there used as valid, and was subsequently made available before 1961 under the provisions of Article 11.6.1, the type species of the nominal genus or subgenus first published as a synonym is that nominal species (cited by an available name) first directly associated with it.
67.12.1. If more than one nominal species was first directly associated with a genus-group name first published as a synonym and made available under Article 11.6.1, those nominal species are the originally included nominal species for the purposes of Articles 68 and 69.
Example. Meigen (1818) synonymized the manuscript generic names Palpomyia and Forcipomyia with Ceratopogon Meigen, 1803 (Diptera), by mentioning them under species of the latter. Both are available under the provisions of Article 11.6.1. Ceratopogon flavipes Meigen, the only species with which Palpomyia was associated, is automatically its type species by monotypy. Ceratopogon bipunctatus (Linnaeus) and C. albipennis Meigen, the only species with which Forcipomyia was associated, are the originally included species that are eligible for subsequent type fixation for Forcipomyia. The type species of Ceratopogon is not automatically the type species of either Palpomyia or Forcipomyia.
67.13. Type species cited as deliberately used misapplications or misidentifications of previously established names.
67.13.1. If an author fixes as the type species of a new nominal genus or subgenus a species originally included deliberately in the sense of a misidentification or misapplication by an earlier author of a name which had been previously established [Art. 67.2.1], the type species fixed by that action is deemed to be a new nominal species [Arts. 11.10, 50.1.2 and 70.4; for the name-bearing type of this species see Article 72.4.2].
67.13.2. For the subsequent designation as the type species of a previously established genus-group taxon of a species originally included as an expressly stated misidentification, see Article 69.2.4.
67.14. Type species disregarded in collective groups. If the name of a nominal genus-group taxon is subsequently applied to a collective group, the type species of that taxon is disregarded while the name is used as a collective-group name (see also Article 23.7).
Example. Cercaria O.F. Müller, 1773, established for a genus of digenean helminths and treated as the name of a nominal genus by many 19th century authors as if C. lemna Müller, 1773 was its type species, is now used as a collective-group name for trematode larvae that cannot be placed with certainty in known genera; Cercaria is used in this way irrespective of any taxonomic treatment of it in synonymy.
Schumacher (1817) established a new name Subula for a gastropod, together with a French scientific name alène and explained that he regarded this name as more appropriate than Bruguière's name vis. The name vis was a French scientific name proposed by Bruguière (1792, true date 1789), an equivalent of the Latin scientific name Terebra proposed by Bruguière in 1789 at the same occasion. Subula Schumacher, 1817 was not established as a new replacement name for Terebra Bruguière, 1789 because Schumacher (1817) did not cite this name.
The term "in the sense of a misidentification or misapplication by an earlier author" should be replaced by a more appropriate term (an author as such cannot be "early"). Perhaps better "in the sense of a misidentification or misapplication published in a previous work or simultaneously by a different author".
In an article authored by Vignon & Ancey (1888), Vignon published a list of species among which was a gastropod species identified as Bulimus exaratus (Müller, 1774). In a footnote on the same page Ancey remarked that Vignon had misidentified Buccinum exaratum Müller, 1774, Ancey gave a short description for Vignon's species and classified it in a new genus Eutaxis, which only contained this species. By this action Ancey established Eutaxis exaratus Ancey, 1888.
More (and real-life) examples should be given to illustrate the exact meaning of this important Article and to make sure that all taxonomists apply the rule in the same form.
Examples: Pilsbry 1926 established the subgenus Mexicodiscus "for Pyramidula victoriana Pilsbry, 1904". This was not an original type designation, the type species was fixed by monotypy at this occasion.
Gray (1850) established a gastropod subgenus Laoma and regarded a particular specimen as the type of the subgenus. This was not a valid type designation of the nominal species Bulimus leimonias in which Gray classified this specimen.
Boettger (1877) established the gastropod genus-group name Clausilia (Euxina (Galeata)) for a number of species which were called "Gruppe der Schwerzenbachi" (= group of the schwerzenbachi), containing originally Clausilia schwerzenbachii Pfeiffer, 1848 and Clausilia galeata Rossmässler, 1839. Clausilia galeata was fixed at this occasion as type species by absolute tautonymy, the indication "Gruppe der Schwerzenbachi" did not constitute a valid type designation.
FranciscoWelterSchultes Art. 67.1 could be modified.
"Name-bearing types. The name-bearing type of a nominal genus or subgenus is a nominal species-group taxon called the "type species" [Art. 42.3]."
A discussion on the [iczn-list] mailing list in Feb 2011 revealed that the present wording created the possible misunderstanding that if a type species is classified as a subspecies, the genus may lose its identity.
Alternatively, the Glossary could define "nominal taxon" better, in accordance with its usage here and in Art. 63. See Glossary. It seems to me that "nominal species", "nominal species and subspecies" and "nominal species-group taxon" is the same. The Code should consistently use only one expression.
Examples: "I propose the genus Mexicodiscus for Pyramidula victoriana Pilsbry, 1904" - this is not an original type designation.
We can add another example: Delima Hartmann, 1842 was established without description and without species included, but with a bibliographical reference to a source with three nominal species. Delima was thus made available only under Art. 12.2.5. Pfeiffer (1848) designated as type Clausilia laevissima, one of those three species.
"An incorrect citation of a type species, whether or not originally included, does not establish a new genus-group name."
It would be necessary to give a statement that incorrect citations or incorrect attributions of authorships cannot be interpreted to serve as new names. This seems to be a recent trend, to skip the provisions of this Article, and to regard the incorrect citations as new names, and to attribute new authorships for them. The result is the new phenomenon of homonymous synonyms. This was the subject of a discussion at the [Taxacom] mailing listserver in June 2012.
It would be useful to have a clear statement that the decision, new name or not, cannot be taken by the author who subsequently used a genus and cited an incorrect type species for it. This must also and expressly apply to modern publications.
See my comment under Art. 61.1.3 (saved under Art. 62 because of CouldNotLock error).
Example: Gymnochanda Fraser-Brunner, 1955 (Actinopterygii: Ambassidae), subsequently used and intentionally established as new by Boeseman in 1957 who did not know that the name had already been established in 1955. Boeseman 1957 designated a different type species. Both type species were considered congeneric by both authors. Boeseman 1957 did not establish a new genus, the statement "new genus" was incorrect and the type designation invalid.
The other side of the limit should also be shown.
The butterfly names Argus Scopoli,, 1763 (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae: Polyommatinae), Argus Scopoli, 1777 (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Satyrinae) and Argus Gerhard, 1850 (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae: Theclinae) are separate names because the authors who established them, did not use them in the sense of the concept they applied for the previously established name. If all butterflies are classified in one single genus Papilio, the three names become homonymous synonyms at the generic level. The same would apply to Argus Scopoli, 1763 and Argus Gerhard, 1850 if all lycaenids would be classified in the same genus.
FranciscoWelterSchultes Art. 67.2.3 should be slightly modified.
67.2.3. Mere reference in the original publication to a publication containing the name of a species does not by itself constitute an express reference of a nominal species to a nominal genus. If the genus-group name was exclusively based on one or several species clearly included by bibliographic reference [Art. 12.2.5], then these species are deemed to be the originally included species.
Example: The gastropod genus-group name Papillifera Hartmann, 1843 was established without description and was only made available because a bibliographical reference was provided to a list of species published by Pfeiffer (1841), containing seven nominal species. These seven species are deemed to be the originally included species.
This case was discussed in the [iczn-list] mailing list in Oct 2011. It was considered as an unintended gap in the Code (it makes no sense to regard a genus as available because species were included, and in the next Article say they were not originally included).
FranciscoWelterSchultes Art. 67.6 should be amended.
67.6. Fixations using incorrect spellings or unjustified emendations. If the name of a type species, when fixed, is cited in the form of an incorrect spelling or an unjustified emendation, it is deemed to have been cited in its correct original spelling (see also Article 69.2.1). If the genus-group name for which the type species is fixed, is cited in the form of an incorrect spelling or an unjustified emendation, it is deemed to have been cited in its correct original spelling (see also Article 69.1.3).
For my proposal to amend Art. 69.1.3 see under Art. 70 (because of the CouldNotLock error in Art. 69).
"Available names cited as synonyms are also eligible (except if monotypy applies, see Art. 68.3)."
It would be useful to have a clear statement on this point in the Code.
The meaning of this Article should be clarified by an example, because only insiders know how to interprete the term "nominal species".
Example: Ortiz de Zárate y López 1949 established a new subgenus Mengoana for a well-studied species from N Spain presented under the name Helix brigantina Da Silva Mengo 1867 (Gastropoda), used in an interpretation by Kobelt 1878. The author stated that the original name could probably have referred to another species from Portugal, contrasting Kobelt's interpretation of the name. Today we know that Helix brigantina did indeed refer to the Portuguese species, and that Ortiz de Zárate y López used this name as a deliberate misidentification to establish a new genus. The nominal species was not doubtfully included, because the author made unambiguously clear that this species should be included in this subgenus, although the author had expressed doubts on the correct use of its name brigantina.
FranciscoWelterSchultes 67.14: the example should be modified.
Cercaria O.F. Müller, 1773 should be replaced by Cercaria Müller, 1773.
It is the only example in the Code where initials of first names are attached to an author in a name of a taxon. Names should be consistently spelled without initials of authors.
We seem to have a problem with inconsistent and controversial applications of standards concerning acceptable original and subsequent type designations.
In my example from Herrmannsen 1846 I proposed to recognize type designations where the term "type" or "typical species" was literally used, regardless of the presumed true concept and meaning of the term "type" applied by the author. Many taxonomists seem to disagree in this point, and think that only those type designations should be accepted where the term "type" or "typical species" was meant in the sense of the present-day Code conform interpretation of these terms. I think this should be ruled explicitely in the Code. Either the Code should recognize the literal terms as acceptable regardless of the authors' concept (I would exclude those situations where we have expressed contrary statements in the publication itself, like Kobelt 1904), or only those type designations should be regarded as acceptable where the authors applied the term "type" unambiguously in the sense of a unique name-bearing type species determining the identity of the genus. The last would then exclude type designations by Montfort 1810 and others from before the 1840s, because these ideas had not come up before.
FranciscoWelterSchultes A new passage should be added.
"67.8.2. A new replacement name must be accompanied by an expressed statement that defines it as a new replacement name. The substituted name must be mentioned, and it must be clear from the contents why the name needed to be substituted."
Example: Cossmann 1889 gave a summary of a work written by Sacco 1888 and listed his new species, among these was Pupa (Coryna) proexcessiva Sacco, 1888 (Gastropoda: Argnidae). Cossmann must have seen that Coryna Westerlund was a junior homonym of Coryna Bosc, 1802 (Cnidaria), Cossmann simply replaced that name and listed Sacco's species without any comment as Pupa (Argna) proexcessiva. Argna Cossmann, 1889 was not established as a new replacement name because of the lack of an expressed statement and because the name Coryna was not mentioned. Argna was a new generic name with its type species Pupa proexcessiva Sacco, 1888 fixed by monotypy.
Such a passage is necessary because Argna and many other names are regarded as new replacement names by many researchers, in the case of Argna with different type species. The term "expressly" in 67.8 is widely overlooked.
FranciscoWelterSchultes 67.8 should be more explicite regarding the conditions to be met for recognizing a name as a new replacement name.
"If a genus-group name is expressly proposed as a new replacement name for an unavailable name, or for a different interpretation of a previously established name, then the name is available as a simple newly established name."
Example 1: Aegopinella Lindholm, 1927 (Gastropoda) was expressly established as a new replacement name for Polita Held, 1838, and Lindholm claimed that its type species was Helix pura Alder, 1830. Polita Held 1838 is an available name with a different type species designated at a previous occasion, and had no senior homonyms. Since there was nothing to replace, Aegopinella Lindholm, 1927 is to be regarded as a new name with its type species Helix pura Alder, 1830. If Polita Held, 1838 had been a junior homonym of an older name Polita, then Aegopinella would have been a new replacement name and its type would have been Polita's type, regardless of Lindholm having mentioned as type Helix pura.
Example 2: Coryna Westerlund, 1887 (Gastropoda) was established for 7 species of Argnidae, and mentioned that Hartmann 1841 had used the name Sphyradium for a member of this group, not in the sense Sphyradium Charpentier, 1837 had been used in the 1880s (Orculidae). Pilsbry 1922-1926 argued that Westerlund had established Coryna a new replacement name for Sphyradium Hartmann, 1841 non Charpentier, 1837. This view is not tenable, Hartmann just used Charpentier's name in the sense this name had been used in the 1840s, Hartmann did not establish a new name, and Westerlund 1887 could not have established a name to replace Hartmann's 1841 interpretation of Charpentier's 1837 name.
This passage is necessary because it is always unclear what to do with names that were established as replacement names but not truely based on names to be replaced. Some researchers think they must then be unavailable.
"The genus-group name Armenica Boettger, 1877 (Gastropoda) was established as a section of Clausilia (Oligoptychia) for seven species under the headline "Gruppe der [= group of the] laevicollis", a term for which Armenica was proposed as a synonym. Clausilia laevicollis was not designated as the type at this occasion.
Kobelt 1904 (Iconographie) explained explicitely that he did not agree with the type species concept as proposed by Dall (Nautilus 17: 114) (who had basically defended the concept and meaning of types of the present-day Code). The mollusc species listed as "Typus" by Kobelt 1904 (for example for Monterosato's generic names) cannot be regarded as type designations in the sense of the Code. This however does not affect other publications by Kobelt which lack such explicite statements.
Herrmannsen 1846 listed many mollusc genera and gave types for them. For some genera Herrmannsen listed two or more species as types. This does not make his other type designations invalid.
Causa Shilejko, 1971 (Gastropoda) was established as a "monotypic genus with one species" Helix holosericea Gmelin, 1791. This statement is regarded as original type designation."
These examples will help European non-marine malacologists to correctly identify types of approximately 10-20 % of the currently used generic names, their type designations would otherwise be continuously debated.

References: Art. 67
 Art. 63
 Art. 12
 Art. 61
 Art. 62
 Art. 67
 Art. 67
 Art. 69
 Art. 70
 Art. 69
 Art. 68