Talk:Type species

message: Type species is a bit in a large article that also and also and also discusses. I think it would be a better idea to split up that article to discuss the holotypes et al and seperatie the type species bit out of there. GerardM 20:58, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A note

message: This article does a pretty poor job of explaining that a type species is just a species of name foo bar, where foo = bar, and that that's really all there is to it. (And if that's not the case, well then it does a *really* poor job of it, but that's what I was able to glean from the link to the article on the sunfish node.) --Belg4mit 04:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it would help if you expressed yourself more clearly ? 10:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the definition is not sufficiently clear for someone not especially familiar with biological taxonomies. I came here from the article on smallmouth bass because I was curious about what a "type species" is, so I followed the link. If I am reading the quoted definition correctly, a type species is the species in a genus (or other category) that the genus name is attached to. This means if, for example, scientists discovered through genome analysis that smallmouth bass and largemouth bass are not genetically closely related, smallmouth bass would keep the genus name Micropterus whereas largemouth bass would be branched off into its own genus or moved into an existing one. Articles like this one are what they are referring to in the Slashdot article Does Wikipedia Suck on Science Stories?.--NeantHumain 16:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's the case that type species means foo=bar; eg Tyrannosaurus rex is a type species. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity 

message: I had a go at fixing it up a bit, including giving one example. Currently the section within the article Type (biology)#Types in zoology gives a clearer explanation of Type species than this article does. Invertzoo (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to make it clearer 

message: The diagramme is 'explained' as "Diagrammatic representation of different nomenclatural interpretations for species. Each taxonomist has a different view for genus attribution, but the reference on type species is preserved, and ensures precise communication."
So I'm told that, "the reference on type species is preserved", but how could I know this from the diagramme???
Better would be: "the reference on type species is preserved, as shown by .........".
—DIV (120.17.190.46 (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that the diagram did not add to, but rather cluttered the page. I've removed it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy diagramme 

message: It seems like this is a misleading example since M. cartusiana was described in Helix. This makes this make the type species Helix cartusiana, no? Umimmak (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's still the species that contains the name-bearing type, but the ICZN is clear that type species should be cited under their original names, so this needs to be fixed, which I will. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I wasn't sure whether it was more accurate to say something along the lines of of "type species is [current combination], cited as [original combination]" or something like "the type species is [original combination], now known as [current combination]". Umimmak (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monacha example