Hubbry Logo
Type (biology)Type (biology)Main
Open search
Type (biology)
Community hub
Type (biology)
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Type (biology)
Type (biology)
from Wikipedia

Type specimen for Marocaster coronatus

In biology, a type is a particular specimen (or in some cases a group of specimens) of an organism to which the scientific name of that organism is formally associated. In other words, a type is an example that serves to anchor or centralizes the defining features of that particular taxon. In older usage (pre-1900 in botany), a type was a taxon rather than a specimen.[1]

A taxon is a scientifically named grouping of organisms with other like organisms, a set that includes some organisms and excludes others, based on a detailed published description (for example a species description) and on the provision of type material, which is usually available to scientists for examination in a major museum research collection, or similar institution.[1][2]

Type specimen

[edit]
Carl Linnaeus's remains constitute the type specimen for Homo sapiens.

According to a precise set of rules laid down in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) and the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN), the scientific name of every taxon is almost always based on one particular specimen, or in some cases specimens. Types are of great significance to biologists, especially to taxonomists. Types are usually physical specimens that are kept in a museum or herbarium research collection, but failing that, an image of an individual of that taxon has sometimes been designated as a type.[3] Describing species and appointing type specimens is part of scientific nomenclature and alpha taxonomy.

When identifying material, a scientist attempts to apply a taxon name to a specimen or group of specimens based on their understanding of the relevant taxa,[clarification needed][citation needed] based on (at least) having read the type description(s),[citation needed] preferably also based on an examination of all the type material of all of the relevant taxa. If there is more than one named type that all appear to be the same taxon, then the oldest name takes precedence and is considered to be the correct name of the material in hand. If on the other hand, the taxon appears never to have been named at all, then the scientist or another qualified expert picks a type specimen and publishes a new name and an official description.[citation needed]

Depending on the nomenclature code applied to the organism in question, a type can be a specimen, a culture, an illustration, or (under the bacteriological code) a description.[4][5][6]

For example, in the research collection of the Natural History Museum in London, there is a bird specimen numbered 1886.6.24.20. This is a specimen of a kind of bird commonly known as the spotted harrier, which currently bears the scientific name Circus assimilis. This particular specimen is the holotype for that species; the name Circus assimilis refers, by definition, to the species of that particular specimen. That species was named and described by Jardine and Selby in 1828, and the holotype was placed in the museum collection so that other scientists might refer to it as necessary.[citation needed]

At least for type specimens there is no requirement for a "typical" individual to be used. Genera and families, particularly those established by early taxonomists, tend to be named after species that are more "typical" for them, but here too this is not always the case and due to changes in systematics cannot be. Hence, the term name-bearing type or onomatophore is sometimes used, to denote the fact that biological types do not define "typical" individuals or taxa, but rather fix a scientific name to a specific operational taxonomic unit. Type specimens are theoretically even allowed to be aberrant or deformed individuals or color variations, though this is rarely chosen to be the case, as it makes it hard to determine to which population the individual belonged.[1][2][7]

The usage of the term type is somewhat complicated by slightly different uses in botany and zoology. In the PhyloCode, type-based definitions are replaced by phylogenetic definitions.[citation needed]

Older terminology

[edit]

In some older taxonomic works the word "type" has sometimes been used differently. The meaning was similar in the first Laws of Botanical Nomenclature,[8][9] but has a meaning closer to the term taxon in some other works:[10]

Ce seul caractère permet de distinguer ce type de toutes les autres espèces de la section. ... Après avoir étudié ces diverses formes, j'en arrivai à les considérer comme appartenant à un seul et même type spécifique.

Translation: This single character permits [one to] distinguish this type from all other species of the section ... After studying the diverse forms, I came to consider them as belonging to the one and the same specific type.

In botany

[edit]

In botanical nomenclature, a type (typus, nomenclatural type), "is that element to which the name of a taxon is permanently attached." (article 7.2)[11] In botany, a type is either a specimen or an illustration. A specimen is a real plant (or one or more parts of a plant or a lot of small plants), dead and kept safe, "curated", in a herbarium (or the equivalent for fungi). Examples of where an illustration may serve as a type include:

  • A detailed drawing, painting, etc., depicting the plant, from the early days of plant taxonomy. A dried plant was difficult to transport and hard to keep safe for the future; many specimens from the early days of botany have since been lost or damaged. Highly skilled botanical artists were sometimes employed by a botanist to make faithful and detailed illustrations. Some such illustrations have become the best record and have been chosen to serve as the type of taxon.
  • A detailed picture of something that can be seen only through a microscope. A tiny "plant" on a microscope slide makes for a poor type: the microscope slide may be lost or damaged, or it may be very difficult to find the "plant" in question among whatever else is on the microscope slide. An illustration makes for a much more reliable type (Art 37.5 of the Vienna Code, 2006).

A type does not determine the circumscription of the taxon. For example, the common dandelion is a controversial taxon: some botanists consider it to consist of over a hundred species, and others regard it as a single species. The type of the name Taraxacum officinale is the same whether the circumscription of the species includes all those small species (Taraxacum officinale is a "big" species) or whether the circumscription is limited to only one small species among the other hundred (Taraxacum officinale is a "small" species). The name Taraxacum officinale is the same and the type of the name is the same, but the extent to which the name actually applies varies greatly. Setting the circumscription of a taxon is done by a taxonomist in a publication.

Miscellaneous notes:

  1. Only a species or an infraspecific taxon can have a type of its own. For most new taxa (published on or after 1 January 2007, article 37) at these ranks, a type should not be an illustration.
  2. A genus has the same type as that of one of its species (article 10).
  3. A family has the same type as that of one of its genera (article 10).

The ICN provides a listing of the various kinds of types (article 9 and the Glossary),[11] the most important of which is the holotype. These are

  • holotype – the single specimen or illustration that the author(s) clearly indicated to be the nomenclatural type of a name
  • lectotype – a specimen or illustration designated from the original material as the nomenclatural type when there was no holotype specified or the holotype has been lost or destroyed
  • isotype – a duplicate of the holotype
  • syntype – any specimen (or illustration) cited in the original description when there is no holotype, or any one of two or more specimens simultaneously designated as types
  • paratype – any specimen (or illustration) cited in the original description that is not the holotype nor an isotype, nor one of the syntypes
  • neotype – a specimen or illustration selected to serve as nomenclatural type if no material from the original description is available
  • epitype – a specimen or illustration selected to serve as an interpretative type, usually when another kind of type does not show the critical features needed for identification

The word "type" appears in botanical literature as a part of some older terms that have no status under the ICN: for example a clonotype.

In zoology

[edit]
A gossamer-winged butterfly, Jamides elioti:
1) dorsal and 2) ventral aspect of holotype,
3) dorsal and 4) ventral aspect of paratype

In zoological nomenclature, the type of a species or subspecies is a specimen or series of specimens. The type of a genus or subgenus is a species. The type of a suprageneric taxon (e.g., family, etc.) is a genus. Names higher than superfamily rank do not have types. A "name-bearing type" is a specimen or image that "provides the objective standard of reference whereby the application of the name of a nominal taxon can be determined."[citation needed]

Definitions

[edit]
  • A type specimen is a vernacular term (not a formally defined term) typically used for an individual or fossil that is any of the various name-bearing types for a species. For example, the type specimen for the species Homo neanderthalensis was the specimen "Neanderthal-1" discovered by Johann Karl Fuhlrott in 1856 at Feldhofer in the Neander Valley in Germany, consisting of a skullcap, thigh bones, part of a pelvis, some ribs, and some arm and shoulder bones. There may be more than one type specimen, but there is (at least in modern times) only one holotype.
  • A type species is the nominal species that is the name-bearing type of a nominal genus or subgenus.
  • A type genus is the nominal genus that is the name-bearing type of a nominal family-group taxon.
  • The type series are all those specimens included by the author in a taxon's formal description, unless the author explicitly or implicitly excludes them as part of the series.

Use of type specimens

[edit]
Type illustration of Mormopterus acetabulosus

Although in reality biologists may examine many specimens (when available) of a new taxon before writing an official published species description, nonetheless, under the formal rules for naming species (the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature), a single type must be designated, as part of the published description.[citation needed]

A type description must include a diagnosis (typically, a discussion of similarities to and differences from closely related species), and an indication of where the type specimen or specimens are deposited for examination. The geographical location where a type specimen was originally found is known as its type locality. In the case of parasites, the term type host (or symbiotype) is used to indicate the host organism from which the type specimen was obtained.[12]

Zoological collections are maintained by universities and museums. Ensuring that types are kept in good condition and made available for examination by taxonomists are two important functions of such collections. And, while there is only one holotype designated, there can be other "type" specimens, the following of which are formally defined:

Holotype

[edit]

When a single specimen is clearly designated in the original description, this specimen is known as the holotype of that species.[13] The holotype is typically placed in a major museum, or similar well-known public collection, so that it is freely available for later examination by other biologists.

Paratype

[edit]

When the original description designated a holotype, there may be additional specimens that the author designates as additional representatives of the same species, termed paratypes. These are not name-bearing types.[citation needed]

Allotype

[edit]

An allotype is a specimen of the opposite sex to the holotype, designated from among paratypes. The word was also formerly used for a specimen that shows features not seen in the holotype of a fossil.[14] The term is not regulated by the ICZN.[citation needed]

Neotype

[edit]

A neotype is a specimen later selected to serve as the single type specimen when an original holotype has been lost or destroyed or where the original author never cited a specimen.

Syntype

[edit]

A syntype is any one of two or more specimens that is listed in a species description where no holotype was designated; historically, syntypes were often explicitly designated as such, and under the present ICZN this is a requirement, but modern attempts to publish species description based on syntypes are generally frowned upon by practicing taxonomists, and most are gradually being replaced by lectotypes. Those that still exist are still considered name-bearing types.[citation needed]

Lectotype

[edit]

A lectotype is a specimen later selected to serve as the single type specimen for species originally described from a set of syntypes. In zoology, a lectotype is a kind of name-bearing type. When a species was originally described on the basis of a name-bearing type consisting of multiple specimens, one of those may be designated as the lectotype. Having a single name-bearing type reduces the potential for confusion, especially considering that it is not uncommon for a series of syntypes to contain specimens of more than one species.

Formally, Carl Linnaeus is the lectotype for Homo sapiens, designated in 1959.[15][16] He published the first book considered to be part of taxonomical nomenclature, the 10th edition of Systema Naturae, which included the first description of Homo sapiens and determined all valid syntypes for the species.[15] Crucially, in 1959, Professor William Stearne wrote in a passing remark on Linnaeus's contributions, "Linnaeus himself, must stand as the type of his Homo sapiens."[15][17] He justified his choice by noting that the specimen that Linnaeus, who wrote his own autobiography five times, had most studied was probably himself.[18] This sufficiently and correctly designated Linnaeus to be the lectotype for Homo sapiens.[15]

It has also been suggested that Edward Cope is the lectotype for Homo sapiens, based on the 1994 reporting by Louie Psihoyos of an unpublished proposal by Bob Bakker to do so.[15] However, this designation is invalid both because Edward Cope was not one of the specimens described in Systema Naturae 10th Ed., and therefore not being a syntype is not eligible, and because Stearne's designation in 1959 has seniority and invalidates future designations.[15]

Paralectotype

[edit]

A paralectotype is any additional specimen from among a set of syntypes after a lectotype has been designated from among them. These are not name-bearing types.[19]

Hapantotype

[edit]

A special case in protists where the type consists of two or more specimens of "directly related individuals" within a preparation medium such as a blood smear. The terms parahapantotype and lectohapantotype refer to type preparations additional to the hapantotype and designated by the describing author.[20] As with other type designations the use of the prefix "Neo-", such as Neohapantotype, is employed when a replacement for the original hapantotype is designated, or when an original description did not include a designated type specimen.[21]

Iconotype

[edit]

An illustration on which a new species or subspecies was based. For instance, the Burmese python, Python bivittatus, is one of many species that are based on illustrations by Albertus Seba (1734).[22][23]

Ergatotype

[edit]

An ergatotype is a specimen selected to represent a worker member in hymenopterans which have polymorphic castes.[14]

Hypotype

[edit]

A hypotype is a specimen whose details have previously been published that is used in a supplementary figure or description of the species.[24]

Kleptotype

[edit]

The term "kleptotype" informally refers to a type specimen or a part of it that has been stolen, or improperly relocated.[25][26][27][28]

Alternatives to preserved specimens

[edit]

Type illustrations have also been used by zoologists, as in the case of the Réunion parakeet, which is known only from historical illustrations and descriptions.[29]: 24 

Recently, some species have been described where the type specimen was released alive back into the wild, such as the Bulo Burti boubou (a bushshrike), described as Laniarius liberatus, in which the species description included DNA sequences from blood and feather samples. Assuming there is no future question as to the status of such a species, the absence of a type specimen does not invalidate the name, but it may be necessary for the future to designate a neotype for such a taxon, should any questions arise. However, in the case of the bushshrike, ornithologists have argued that the specimen was a rare and hitherto unknown color morph of a long-known species, using only the available blood and feather samples. While there is still some debate on the need to deposit actual killed individuals as type specimens, it can be observed that given proper vouchering and storage, tissue samples can be just as valuable should dispute about the validity of a species arise.[citation needed]

Formalisation of the type system

[edit]

The various types listed above are necessary[citation needed] because many species were described one or two centuries ago, when a single type specimen, a holotype, was often not designated. Also, types were not always carefully preserved, and intervening events such as wars and fires have resulted in the destruction of the original type material. The validity of a species name often rests upon the availability of original type specimens; or, if the type cannot be found, or one has never existed, upon the clarity of the description.

The ICZN has existed only since 1961 when the first edition of the Code was published. The ICZN does not always demand a type specimen for the historical validity of a species, and many "type-less" species do exist. The current edition of the Code, Article 75.3, prohibits the designation of a neotype unless there is "an exceptional need" for "clarifying the taxonomic status" of a species (Article 75.2).

There are many other permutations and variations on terms using the suffix "-type" (e.g., allotype, cotype, topotype, generitype, isotype, isoneotype, isolectotype, etc.) but these are not formally regulated by the Code, and a great many are obsolete and/or idiosyncratic. However, some of these categories can potentially apply to genuine type specimens, such as a neotype; e.g., isotypic/topotypic specimens are preferred to other specimens, when they are available at the time a neotype is chosen (because they are from the same time and/or place as the original type).[citation needed] A topotype is a specimen that was obtained from the same location that the original type specimen came from.[30]

The term fixation is used by the Code for the declaration of a name-bearing type, whether by original or subsequent designation.[citation needed]

Type species

[edit]
The common toad, Bufo bufo described by Linnaeus, is the type species for the genus Bufo

Each genus must have a designated type species (the term "genotype" was once used for this but has been abandoned because the word has become much better known as the term for a different concept in genetics). The description of a genus is usually based primarily on its type species, modified and expanded by the features of other included species. The generic name is permanently associated with the name-bearing type of its type species.[citation needed]

Ideally, a type species best exemplifies the essential characteristics of the genus to which it belongs, but this is subjective and, ultimately, technically irrelevant, as it is not a requirement of the Code. If the type species proves, upon closer examination, to belong to a pre-existing genus (a common occurrence), then all of the constituent species must be either moved into the pre-existing genus or disassociated from the original type species and given a new generic name; the old generic name passes into synonymy and is abandoned unless there is a pressing need to make an exception (decided case-by-case, via petition to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature).[citation needed]

Type genus

[edit]

A type genus is a genus from which the name of a family or subfamily is formed. As with type species, the type genus is not necessarily the most representative but is usually the earliest described, largest or best-known genus. It is not uncommon for the name of a family to be based upon the name of a type genus that has passed into synonymy; the family name does not need to be changed in such a situation.[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
In biological nomenclature, a type (or nomenclatural type) is the specific element—typically a preserved specimen, , or —to which the scientific name of a is permanently attached, serving as the fixed reference point for determining the name's application and ensuring nomenclatural stability across scientific communities. This concept, central to the (ICZN) for animals and the International Code of Nomenclature for , fungi, and (ICN) for and related organisms, prevents ambiguity by anchoring names to tangible evidence rather than subjective interpretations. The role of types extends across taxonomic ranks, with species-group taxa (species and subspecies) primarily using name-bearing type specimens such as the (a single designated specimen), syntypes (multiple specimens when no holotype is specified), lectotype (a later-selected specimen from syntypes), or neotype (a replacement specimen when the original is lost or inadequate). For genera and subgenera, the type is a designated , which in turn relies on its own type specimen to define the group's limits. At higher ranks like families or orders, the type is the nominal upon which the name is based, linking the hierarchy through a chain of typification. In , similar principles apply, though types may include preserved sheets, photographs, or even published descriptions for organisms like where specimens are challenging to preserve. Types are not chosen for being the most "typical" representative of a but purely for nomenclatural purposes, providing an objective standard that facilitates revisions, synonymy resolutions, and global communication among taxonomists. Their designation occurs during the original description of a new , with strict rules governing subsequent fixes or changes to maintain priority and avoid disputes. Repositories such as museums (e.g., the or ) house millions of type specimens, making them invaluable for , conservation, and resolving taxonomic uncertainties. Without this typification system, the vast Linnaean framework of over 2 million described would lack the precision needed for scientific progress.

Overview of the Type Concept

Purpose and Role in Taxonomy

In biological taxonomy, type specimens serve as the foundational reference points that fix the application of scientific names to specific taxa, thereby eliminating ambiguity in nomenclature. By designating a particular specimen as the bearer of a species name, types ensure that scientists worldwide can refer to the same entity when using that name, regardless of variations in descriptions or interpretations. This objective anchoring is essential under codes like the (ICZN) and the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN), which mandate types to link names unequivocally to biological reality. The primary role of types in taxonomy is to prevent nomenclatural instability, particularly during taxonomic revisions or disputes over synonymy, where differing opinions on species boundaries could otherwise lead to chaotic reassignments of names. For instance, when new evidence prompts a reevaluation of a taxon's status, the type provides an immutable baseline against which comparisons are made, stabilizing the scientific literature and databases. This stability is crucial for fields like , where unresolved ambiguities could propagate errors in downstream research, such as phylogenetic analyses or inventories. Without types, the Linnaean binomial system would lack the precision needed for global scientific communication. Emerging from the Linnaean system in the , the concept of types was motivated by the need for reliable anchors in species identification amid the rapid expansion of collections. Linnaeus's emphasis on fixed naming conventions laid the groundwork, evolving into the modern type method to address ambiguities in early descriptions that often relied on verbal accounts alone. In real-world applications, types have resolved critical disputes, such as in conservation, where accurate identification of taxa like the (Bassaricyon neblina) via its type specimen has informed protection strategies and prevented misallocation of resources to non-threatened populations. Type specimens thus embody this anchoring function physically, underpinning the reliability of taxonomic decisions.

Basic Principles and Terminology

In biological , a type is defined as the nomenclatural name-bearer for a , serving as the permanent reference standard to which the scientific name is attached, thereby fixing its application to a specific element such as a specimen, , or name. This role ensures objective and stable across disciplines, preventing ambiguity in how names are applied to biological diversity. The core principles of typification, as outlined in the (ICZN) for animals and the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and (ICN) for , mandate that types are designated and fixed at the time of the original publication or description of a name, providing an enduring anchor for nomenclatural decisions. Under the ICZN, typification applies to all nominal taxa, with name-bearing types (such as specimens for species-group names) ensuring that subsequent interpretations of the name refer back to this fixed element. Similarly, the ICN emphasizes that typification links names to types to resolve questions of priority and application, applicable to all ranks from to higher taxa. These principles promote universality, allowing global consistency in naming without reliance on subjective judgments. Key terminology in biological includes the nomen, which refers to the scientific name itself as published for a ; the taxon, denoting a group of organisms at any rank in a , typically based on shared evolutionary or morphological characteristics; and the nominal taxon, which is the conceptual grouping defined solely by a particular name and its associated type, regardless of whether the is accepted as valid in current classifications. These terms underpin the objective framework of , distinguishing formal naming from broader interpretive processes. A fundamental distinction exists between nomenclatural types, which mechanically fix the application of a name for stability and priority under the codes, and taxonomic types, which serve as representative exemplars embodying the conceptual or morphological core of a for purposes. Nomenclatural types prioritize legalistic precision in naming, while taxonomic types support scientific hypothesis-testing about relationships and boundaries. Type specimens, such as those designated for names, illustrate this dual function in anchoring both and .

Historical Background

Early Concepts Before Linnaeus

In ancient Greek biology, (384–322 BCE) developed a descriptive approach to classifying animals based on empirical observation and comparative analysis, without employing fixed reference specimens or types. His method in works like involved dividing organisms into broad kinds—such as birds or fish—using multiple differentiae like anatomical features and behaviors to identify natural groups, emphasizing co-extensive traits (e.g., all birds possessing beaks and feathers) rather than rigid, unchanging exemplars. This system prioritized inductive generalizations from observed facts, such as the presence of organs in four-legged live-bearing animals, to build a scala naturae (ladder of nature) that arranged species by complexity without designating specific individuals as standards for identification. Similarly, the Roman author (23–79 CE) compiled extensive descriptive classifications in his , an encyclopedic work drawing from over 2,000 sources to catalog plants, animals, and minerals without reliance on fixed types or physical specimens. Pliny organized content hierarchically by topics like and , using verbal accounts of properties, habitats, and uses to aid recognition, such as grouping plants by leaf structure or animals by size from large mammals to insects. His approach integrated cultural and observational knowledge into cognitive categories, reflecting a broad knowledge-ordering framework rather than precise, specimen-based . During the medieval period, herbals and served as practical exemplars for identification, relying on illustrated descriptions to represent plants and animals for medicinal and moral purposes. Medieval herbals, such as the 1st-century by Dioscorides (translated and expanded in manuscripts like the 6th-century Vienna Dioscorides), grouped over 500 plants by properties and form, using detailed textual accounts and rudimentary illustrations to enable physicians and apothecaries to recognize species like Narcissus for therapeutic preparation. , popular illuminated compendia from around 500–1500 CE, described dozens of real and mythical animals with consistent iconic images and behavioral traits, such as the symbolizing Christ, to facilitate moral interpretation and basic identification rather than scientific precision. These texts often linked organisms to deities, planets, or religious allegories, with woodcuts in later works like the 1491 Hortus Sanitatis providing visual aids for over 1,000 entries. By the 17th and 18th centuries, cabinets emerged as proto-type collections, housing physical specimens that prefigured modern taxonomic references. These private "" or wunderkammern, as described in Samuel Quiccheberg's 1565 treatise, amassed encyclopedic arrays of natural objects—including shells, taxidermied animals, , and minerals—categorized by material or origin to represent universal knowledge acquired through exploration and trade. Notable examples, like those of in or in , displayed over hundreds of items such as nautilus shells and exotic , serving scholars for comparative study and verification of descriptions from earlier texts. These collections bridged descriptive traditions with tangible exemplars, influencing the shift toward institutionalized museums. Pre-Linnaean systems, however, were hampered by their reliance on description-only approaches, leading to significant ambiguity in identification due to inconsistent terminology and subjective interpretations. Without unified ranks or fixed references, botanists and zoologists often applied Aristotelian terms like genus and species variably, resulting in overlapping or vague categorizations that varied by author and region. Verbal and illustrative accounts in herbals and bestiaries, while useful for local practitioners, frequently suffered from inaccuracies or cultural biases, causing confusion when applied to new specimens from distant locales. This lack of standardization underscored the need for more precise methods, paving the way for the transition to Linnaean binomial nomenclature in the mid-18th century.

Development of the Type Method

The development of the type method in biological began with Carl Linnaeus's (1758), which established the binomial system and fixed names through detailed descriptions and references to specimens, though without explicitly designating fixed type specimens as name-bearers. Linnaeus relied on a "method of collation," selecting "chief" or typical (often officinal or common ones) to anchor , as outlined in his earlier Fundamenta Botanica (1736), where he stated that upon splitting a genus, the name should adhere to "the that is most vulgar and officinal." This approach implicitly introduced a typological element by prioritizing exemplar specimens or descriptions to maintain nomenclatural stability, serving as the foundational starting point for modern . In the , rapid taxonomic expansion led to widespread synonymy and instability, prompting debates that advocated for the type method as a solution through fixed specimens. The Strickland Committee, appointed by the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1842 and led by Hugh Edwin Strickland, addressed this by proposing the first formal code for zoological nomenclature in 1843, shifting the concept of "type" from a typical exemplar to a nomenclatural anchor tied to the original author's intent. Rule §4 of the Strickland Code specified that "the generic name should always be retained for that portion [of the genus] which was considered typical by the author who established it," emphasizing preservation of the proposer's vision via specimens to resolve ambiguities. This advocacy for type specimens gained traction amid concerns over subjective reinterpretations of Linnaean descriptions. Key zoologists like and played pivotal roles in promoting the type method during this period. Agassiz, in his Nomenclator Zoologicus (1842–1847), compared Linnaean principles to emerging codes but initially overlooked the full nomenclatural shift toward fixed specimens, instead favoring typological ideals rooted in divine design; however, his work on fossil fishes underscored the need for reference specimens to trace evolutionary continuity. Owen, a supporter of the Strickland Committee, advanced the type concept in by integrating it into his archetype theory, arguing for specimens as objective standards to define species limits and homologies across vertebrates, thereby influencing zoological practice toward specimen-based fixation. These efforts highlighted the type method's utility in resolving disputes over species boundaries in zoology. In , Alphonse de Candolle's Lois de la Nomenclature Botanique (1867), adopted at the in , formalized the type method by anchoring names to a single, concrete specimen rather than abstract essences or populations. Article 28 specified that names adhere to an "authentic specimen" designated by the author, stating: "The name of a botanical does not inhere in the population of all members of that , nor in some abstracted or essence of the , but rather in a single, concrete individual specimen." This rule prioritized nomenclatural stability by requiring authors to designate types upon description, with lectotypes selected later if needed, marking a partial but influential adoption of the method in botanical codes. Older terms like "type" (for the primary specimen) and "cotype" (for syntypes) began appearing in this era to distinguish series of specimens.

Older Terminology and Transitions

In the 19th century, the term "type" in biological primarily denoted an ideal or typical specimen that embodied the essential characteristics of a , serving as a morphological rather than a strict nomenclatural . This usage reflected early taxonomic practices where types were selected for their representativeness, often drawn from Linnaean traditions emphasizing diagnostic traits over fixed references. By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the concept shifted toward a nomenclatural fixed point—a single specimen permanently linked to a name to ensure stability amid proliferating synonymy. Precursors to modern type categories included terms like "cotype," which referred to multiple specimens in an original series lacking a designated single type, functioning as an early equivalent to syntypes or . Similarly, "metatype" described specimens from the type locality identified and determined by the original author after the initial description, often used to supplement primary material. These terms, prevalent in late 19th- and early 20th-century publications, were gradually phased out by the 1950s as they introduced ambiguity in name-bearing roles. In , the (ICZN) drove key transitions; the 1905 edition, influenced by works like Schuchert and Buckman's proposals, began standardizing type concepts but retained varied terminology. The 1961 edition marked a pivotal revision, formally defining and prioritizing terms such as and syntype while discouraging obsolete ones like cotype and metatype to promote uniformity. Botanical nomenclature underwent parallel changes, evolving from "typical specimen"—a representative example without mandatory fixation—to the as the designated nomenclatural type. The 1867 Paris Code first emphasized type specimens to combat nomenclatural instability, but full standardization came with the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN, predecessor to the ICN). The 1905 Congress edition formalized the type method, and by the 1935 Congress, designating a became obligatory for new taxa, solidifying its role as the primary name-bearing element.

Type Specimens in Zoology

In zoological , the is defined as the single specimen upon which a new nominal species-group is based in the original publication of the name. This specimen serves as the permanent name-bearer, providing a fixed reference for the application of the species name and ensuring stability in . The designation of a must occur explicitly in the original work, either by the author stating that a particular specimen is the "" or "the type," or through holotype by monotypy when the description is based on a single specimen, whether stated or implied. Illustrations of the specimen may also suffice for designation if clearly linked to the described material. When no holotype is designated in the original publication, the syntypes collectively constitute the name-bearing type for the species. Syntypes are all specimens of the original type series that the author considered in the description, each holding equal status in fixing the name until a lectotype is selected from among them. For works published before 2000, any specimen upon which the description was based may qualify as a syntype, but after 1999, only those expressly indicated by the author are recognized as such to promote precision. Terms like "cotype" or "type" in older publications are treated as syntypes under the current . The (ICZN) governs these designations through Articles 16, 72, and 73. Article 16 mandates that, for new -group names published after 1999, a name-bearing type must be fixed, either as a or by expressly indicating syntypes, to ensure the name's availability. Articles 72 and 73 outline the general provisions, emphasizing that and syntypes are original fixes with name-bearing function, applicable to all nominal and . These rules apply equally to extant and extinct taxa, including those based on fossils. A classic example is the of Tyrannosaurus rex, designated by in 1905 as specimen CM 9380 (originally AMNH 973), a partial including fragments collected from the in . This designation fixed the name to this specific individual, serving as the benchmark for subsequent identifications of the species. To promote nomenclatural stability, the ICZN recommends that authors designate a whenever possible rather than relying on syntypes, as multiple syntypes can lead to ambiguity if the series is dispersed or incomplete. Post-1999 publications must adhere to explicit type fixation to avoid unintended syntype series, and authors are encouraged to deposit the holotype in a recognized public institution with clear labeling and repository details. If syntypes are unavoidable, they should be expressly listed and illustrated to facilitate future lectotype selection if needed.

Lectotype, Neotype, and Secondary Designations

In zoology, a lectotype is designated from an existing series of syntypes when no holotype was originally specified, serving as the unique name-bearing type to fix the application of a species-group name and resolve taxonomic ambiguity. This secondary designation is governed by Article 74 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), which requires explicit statement of the lectotype's identification, characters for recognition, and the taxonomic purpose, particularly for designations after 1999; earlier ones may be validated by unambiguous selection or inference if the author assumed a single type specimen. The selected lectotype supersedes any prior restrictions on the type series, permanently establishing it as the standard unless proven not to be a syntype. The remaining syntypes after lectotype designation become paralectotypes, which lack name-bearing function but may support taxonomic interpretations or serve as potential neotypes if needed. Under ICZN Article 72.1.3, paralectotypes are explicitly defined as each specimen from the former syntype series post-lectotype fixation, emphasizing their supplementary role without altering nomenclatural stability. A neotype is a replacement name-bearing type specimen designated when the original holotype, syntypes, or lectotype is lost, destroyed, or insufficient, ensuring objective application of the name under exceptional circumstances. ICZN Article 75 outlines strict criteria: the designation must demonstrate an exceptional need to define the or clarify its type locality (75.3.1); include differentiating characters (75.3.2) and recognition details (75.3.3); provide of the original type's loss and search efforts (75.3.4); confirm to the original description (75.3.5); originate from the type locality or nearest practicable equivalent (75.3.6); and be deposited in a major recognized institution (75.3.7). These conditions prevent arbitrary substitutions, requiring publication in a scientific outlet and Commission approval if stability is threatened. For instance, the 2013 paper by Tattersall and Sawyer examined the type status of Homo sapiens, refuting historical proposals (including a 1994 claim involving ) and confirming as the lectotype, with no need for a neotype due to the species' clear identity and existing designation. Such stringent rules underscore the ICZN's emphasis on preserving established while allowing corrections only when primary types from syntype series fail to suffice.

Paratype, Allotype, and Supplementary Specimens

In zoological taxonomy, paratypes are additional specimens from the original type series that support the description of a new species or subspecies but do not serve as name-bearing types. According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), when an author designates a holotype—the single name-bearing specimen—the remaining specimens in the type series are classified as paratypes, provided they were explicitly included in the original publication. Paratypes have no nomenclatural status and cannot be selected as lectotypes if the holotype is lost, though they may be considered for neotype designation. They are essential for illustrating intraspecific variation, geographic distribution, and morphological details that complement the holotype, thereby aiding in the taxon's diagnosis without binding the name to any single individual. An allotype is a specific type of designated to represent from the , particularly useful in species exhibiting . The ICZN treats "allotype" as a recommended term rather than a mandatory one, defining it as a specimen of to the with no name-bearing function. This designation helps clarify differences in morphology, coloration, or size between sexes that may not be evident from the alone, enhancing the completeness of the original description. For instance, in descriptions of sexually dimorphic or birds, an allotype provides critical comparative data, though its use is discouraged if multiple opposite-sex specimens are available, to avoid implying undue importance. Hypotypes, also known as referred or supplementary specimens, are non-type specimens examined and documented after the original description to expand on the taxon's characteristics. Unlike , which originate from the initial type series, hypotypes are selected from later collections and used in subsequent studies, figures, or redescriptions without nomenclatural implications. They often illustrate ontogenetic variation, geographic extensions, or confirmatory traits, supporting taxonomic stability by linking new material to the established type. These supplementary specimens play a key role in species diagnoses by providing a broader evidential base for identification criteria, reducing ambiguity in character interpretation, and facilitating comparisons across populations. Authors must clearly distinguish them from name-bearing types to prevent nomenclatural confusion, as emphasized in ICZN guidelines. For example, in the 2024 description of the Andean storm-petrel (Oceanites barrosi), paratypes from were used to document variation and distribution, supplementing the from the . Similarly, in avian taxonomy, paratypes of Hawaiian passerines, such as those described in Olson and James's 1991 study, included specimens from multiple islands to capture subtle ecological adaptations.

Rare and Specialized Types

In , certain type designations address exceptional circumstances where standard specimen-based typification is impractical or impossible, such as for microorganisms, polymorphic castes, or misplaced materials. These rare types are governed or influenced by the (ICZN), ensuring stability in nomenclature despite deviations from typical or syntype practices. A hapantotype applies specifically to extant of protistans, comprising one or more preparations of directly related individuals that represent distinct stages in the life cycle; this series is treated as indivisible and serves as the for the nominal . This designation is particularly useful for parasitic or microscopic organisms where a single specimen cannot capture the full variability, as seen in descriptions of certain protozoan parasites where multiple life stages from a single gathering form the type. Under ICZN Article 73.3.1, the hapantotype cannot be subdivided by lectotype selection, maintaining its unity as the name-bearing type. An iconotype refers to a graphic reproduction, such as an or , of a type specimen, often invoked when no physical specimen exists or can be located. According to ICZN Article 73.1.4, if an original publication designates an of a single specimen as the , it effectively fixes that illustrated specimen as the type, even if the specimen later proves ; in such cases, the Commission may authorize a neotype to replace it. This provision supports nomenclatural stability for historical taxa described solely from figures, though the ICZN discourages new names without preserved specimens unless special circumstances justify it, as per Declaration 45. For polymorphic like in the order , an ergatotype designates a specimen representing the worker , serving as an additional type to exemplify -specific morphology alongside the primary type. This informal term, not directly regulated by the ICZN, aids in clarifying descriptions of social where castes differ markedly, such as in where the worker ergatotype highlights ergatomorphic traits distinct from queens or males. A kleptotype describes a type specimen that has been stolen, borrowed without return, or erroneously retained in a collection other than its designated repository, complicating access but not invalidating its nomenclatural status. Such cases arise from historical misplacements during exchanges between institutions, and under ICZN provisions, the original designation prevails unless formally amended, emphasizing the need for precise locality records to resolve disputes.

Type Specimens in Botany

Holotype, Isotype, and Primary Types

In , primary type specimens serve as the definitive reference for the application of a scientific name to a or infraspecific , ensuring stability and precision in under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and (ICN; Madrid Code, 2025). These types are drawn from the original material associated with the name's protologue—the publication where the name was validly published—and emphasize specimens collected during a single gathering event, defined as material collected at one time and place by a collector. The is the single specimen or illustration selected or designated by the author of the name as the nomenclatural type, fixing the precise application of the name to that . It must be explicitly indicated in the protologue or subsequent original , and its existence is a prerequisite for valid publication of many names under the ICN (Article 9.1). For instance, the holotype of the orchid species Bulbophyllum chrysendetum Ames, collected in the , is preserved in the Oakes Ames Orchid Herbarium at , serving as the benchmark for identifying this epiphytic orchid characterized by its golden-yellow flowers. If the holotype is lost or destroyed, it does not invalidate the name but may necessitate secondary designation later. An isotype is any duplicate specimen of the , originating from the same gathering event and thus bearing equivalent nomenclatural value, though it is always a physical specimen rather than an illustration (ICN Article 9.4). These duplicates are typically distributed to multiple herbaria for safekeeping and verification, enhancing the robustness of taxonomic identifications; for example, isotypes of a holotype from a single field collection of an orchid like species may be housed in institutions such as the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, to support global research. When no holotype is designated in the protologue, all specimens cited therein are considered syntypes, each serving equally as a primary type from which a lectotype may later be selected if needed (ICN Article 9.5). Syntypes arise from the original material of the same or different gatherings and are common in historical descriptions where authors cited multiple collections without specifying one; a representative case is the syntypes of Laurentia frontidentata (a of Wimmerella frontidentata), drawn from collections in European herbaria that informed the original diagnosis of this New Zealand herb. Paratypes are additional specimens cited in the protologue that are neither the holotype, isotypes, nor syntypes, providing supplementary evidence for the taxon's description but lacking the nomenclatural status of primary types (ICN Article 9.6). These are often from the same or nearby gatherings and aid in understanding variation, as seen in paratypes of Rheedia kappleri (a tropical tree), where a hermaphroditic specimen complemented the holotype's morphology. In contrast to zoological nomenclature, the ICN prioritizes the conceptual unity of the gathering event for these primary types, reflecting the abundance of plant material available for duplication.

Lectotype, Neotype, and Secondary Types

In , a lectotype is a specimen or illustration selected from the original material to serve as the nomenclatural type when no was designated or when the is lost or destroyed, as defined in Article 9.2 of the International Code of Nomenclature for , fungi, and (ICN; Madrid Code, 2025). This selection ensures nomenclatural stability by fixing the application of the name to a specific element from the protologue, prioritizing materials that best represent the author's concept, such as isotypes or syntypes if available. The designation must be explicitly stated and published, with the or of deposition indicated if made after 1990 (ICN Art. 9.22). Criteria for choosing a lectotype emphasize taxonomic accuracy and historical , favoring specimens that align with the original description while avoiding those that would cause unnecessary nomenclatural disruption (ICN Art. 9.11 and 9.12). A neotype is designated when no original material exists or when all original material is demonstrably inadequate, serving as a new type to replace lost elements and maintain name stability (ICN Art. 9.7). Unlike lectotypes, neotypes are selected from non-original material, often modern collections, and require justification showing that they represent the as understood at the time of (ICN Art. 9.16). For species-level names, neotype designation is effected through , but for genera or higher taxa, approval by the appropriate , such as the General Committee on , may be required under conservation provisions (ICN Art. 14). A lectotype always takes precedence over a neotype unless the neotype was designated before the lectotype under specific stability rules (ICN Art. 9.10). Remaining syntypes not selected as the lectotype are termed paralectotypes, preserving their status as original material for potential future reference or comparison (ICN Art. 9.5). Duplicates of a lectotype, made contemporaneously from the same gathering, are isolectotypes and carry equal nomenclatural weight (ICN Art. 9.4). These secondary designations support ongoing taxonomic revisions by providing additional anchors to the original circumscription. For example, the Linnaean name laciniata L. (1753) was lectotypified by selection of a specimen from Clifford (Herb. Cliff. 469, Atriplex 3, BM). Similarly, lectotypes have been designated for species like Trapa natans L. using Clifford specimens (BM). These choices prioritize nomenclatural stability, ensuring that subsequent taxonomic decisions align with the lectotype or neotype to minimize changes in name usage (ICN Rec. 9A.1).

Epitype and Supplementary Designations

An epitype is a specimen or designated to serve as an interpretative type when the existing , lectotype, neotype, or all original material associated with a name is demonstrably ambiguous and cannot be critically identified for the precise application of the name to a . This supplementary type was introduced in Article 9.7 of the International Code of Nomenclature for , fungi, and (ICN) under the Tokyo Code in 1994 to address limitations in original types, particularly those lacking sufficient morphological details or modern analytical data. Designation of an epitype requires explicit citation of the type it supports and must specify its location or a bibliographic reference if it is an . The conditions for epitypification are strict to ensure consistency with the original diagnosis: the epitype must not contradict the features described in the protologue, and it is typically chosen from material that provides clearer identification, such as through enhanced morphological examination or . For instance, epitypes are often selected when original types are fragmentary or deteriorated, preventing accurate determination. Unlike a neotype, which fully replaces an existing type, an epitype serves only as a non-binding supplement for clarification. Duplicate specimens of an epitype are termed isoepitypes, which reinforce its interpretative by providing additional replicates for study. Paratypes, as original material not serving as the , isotype, or syntype, may play a supportive in epitypification by offering comparative context, though they do not bear the name directly. In practice, epitypes have proven valuable for fossil , where original types often preserve only gross morphology; an epitype can incorporate additional details like structure for better resolution. For cryptic , which are morphologically similar but genetically distinct, epitypes facilitate differentiation; for example, in the genus Skeletocutis, epitypes designated with molecular sequences clarified boundaries within the S. nivea . A notable case is the epitypification of the fungal Ceratocystis fimbriata, where a modern isolate ( 114723) was selected to match the morphologically while providing DNA sequences (e.g., ITS region, KC493160) and a draft for unambiguous identification. Epitypes play a crucial role in integrative by bridging classical morphology with molecular data, especially for legacy names from pre-genomic eras, thereby stabilizing amid advances in sequencing technologies. This approach ensures that taxonomic decisions incorporate genetic evidence without overriding the original type's authority, promoting precision in studies.

Type Taxa Beyond Specimens

Type Species

In biological nomenclature, a is the nominal species that serves as the name-bearing type for a or , thereby fixing the precise application of the genus-group name to ensure nomenclatural stability across . Under the (ICZN), Article 67 specifies that the of a nominal genus-group must be an originally included nominal , anchoring the to that and, by extension, to the species' own type specimen. Similarly, the International Code of Nomenclature for , fungi, and plants (ICN) in Article 10 states that the type of a name is the type of a name within it, except in cases involving subdivisions or later modifications. This linkage prevents ambiguity in taxonomic revisions, as the name remains tied to the regardless of reclassifications of other included . Designation of a occurs primarily through original fixation in the establishing the , via explicit indication by the , monotypy (when the is based on a single ), absolute tautonymy (where the name matches the name exactly), or Linnaean tautonymy (for pre-1758 names following Linnaeus's conventions). If no original fixation is provided, subsequent designation is permitted under ICZN Article 69, where an eligible originally included is selected by a later , prioritizing stability and following recommendations such as choosing the most representative or earliest described . In , ICN Article 10 follows analogous principles, with original designation preferred, though monotypy and subsequent lectotypification (selecting from original material) are common when needed. The plays a pivotal role in resolving generic and maintaining nomenclatural stability, as it objectively determines whether two names are synonymous—if they share the same , the senior (earlier) name prevails, subordinating the junior as a . This mechanism anchors higher taxonomic decisions, preventing arbitrary shifts in genus application during phylogenetic re-evaluations and ensuring consistent reference across . For instance, in , sapiens Linnaeus, 1758, is the of the Linnaeus, 1758, fixed by original designation and tautonymy, which stabilizes the genus amid debates on extinct relatives like Homo neanderthalensis. In , Rosa cinnamomea L. (syn. Rosa majalis Herrm.) serves as the for the Rosa L., conserved by proposal to fix the name for the rose despite its hundreds of species. Procedures for altering a type species are strictly limited to promote permanence, occurring only if the original fixation is invalid (e.g., not from originally included species) or through subsequent designation when none existed initially; otherwise, changes require an application to the (ICZN) for a ruling under Article 81 to invoke stability over strict priority, such as suppressing a type to avoid confusion. Tautonymy-related issues in zoology, where genus and species names coincide, fix the type via ICZN Article 68.3 but may prompt Commission intervention if they lead to instability, as tautonymous species names are invalid post-1930. In botany, while tautonyms are permitted but discouraged (ICN Recommendation 23A), type changes similarly rely on lectotypification or epitypification only for unresolved original material, without routine replacement.

Type Genus

In biological nomenclature, the type genus serves as the name-bearing type for family-group taxa, anchoring the name of a , , , or superfamily to a specific through its stem, thereby ensuring nomenclatural stability. Under the (ICZN), Article 63 defines the as the nominal upon which the family-group name is based; for instance, if the family name derives directly from a name, that becomes the irrespective of its original rank. Similarly, in governed by the International Code of Nomenclature for , fungi, and (ICN), Article 18 stipulates that the name of a is formed from the genitive singular of a legitimate included , which functions as the , with the of that further fixing the application. This dual fixation— via —prevents ambiguity in taxonomic revisions by linking higher taxa to a concrete reference point. Designation of the occurs automatically in most cases: for family-group names, it is the from which the name is derived, often the first or most characteristic mentioned in the original . If the original does not specify, subsequent rules allow fixation by of coordination or by international commission, but monotypic families (those with only one ) inherently designate that as the type. In higher , the plays a critical role in resolving synonymy; for example, if two superfamily names share the same , the senior name prevails, as synonymy at the family level extends upward under ICZN Article 36.1. This mechanism has been essential in stabilizing classifications, such as distinguishing valid superfamilies from junior synonyms based on shared . A prominent example is the family Felidae (cats), established by Fischer von Waldheim in 1817, with Felis Linnaeus, 1758, as its type genus; the family name derives from the stem "Fel-," and the type species Felis catus further anchors it, influencing classifications across subfamilies like Felinae and Pantherinae. In botany, the family Poaceae (grasses) has Poa as its type genus, formed from the genitive Poae, reflecting the grass-like genera's centrality. Historically, pre-20th-century nomenclature often lacked explicit type designations, leading to disputes resolved ad hoc; the ICZN's fourth edition in 1999 introduced amendments clarifying fixation rules (e.g., Articles 61–65), mandating explicit identification of type genera in new family-group names and retroactively stabilizing older ones through monotypy or subsequent designation, reducing nomenclatural instability in zoological higher taxa.

Types for Higher Taxa

In biological , types for higher taxa such as orders, classes, and are fixed by reference to subordinate taxa, providing an objective standard for name application. For orders in , the type is conventionally the type , which itself is based on the type of that , although the (ICZN) formally regulates only up to the superfamily rank (Article 35). This hierarchical typification ensures stability, as the name of the order adheres to the included containing the reference . For example, in the order Testudines (), the type is Testudinidae, established through priority and inclusion of the type Testudo. In , the International Code of Nomenclature for , fungi, and (ICN) explicitly addresses higher ranks, requiring that names of orders be based on the type of an included (Article 17.1), with endings in -ales to denote the rank. This differs from , where higher ranks like orders lack mandatory endings or strict typification under the ICZN, relying instead on convention and priority from the earliest valid usage. For classes and phyla, both codes use analogous principles, with the type being the subordinate rank (e.g., an order for a class), but extends formal rules to these levels, promoting uniformity in and fungal . Phylogenetic nomenclature, as outlined in the PhyloCode, introduces alternatives to Linnaean rank-based types for higher taxa, emphasizing clade definitions over fixed ranks. Stem-based (or branch-based) definitions anchor a clade to the branch leading to a crown group from an outgroup, while node-based definitions specify the most recent common ancestor of included taxa plus all descendants. These approaches influence modern higher taxon delimitations, particularly in integrating fossils, but they coexist with traditional codes rather than replacing them. Stability of higher taxa names faces significant challenges, especially with records, as new discoveries can reshape phylogenetic relationships and necessitate reclassification without altering type fixations. Fossils often bridge gaps between extant groups, but incomplete preservation and morphological convergence complicate typification, leading to nomenclatural instability when higher taxa are redefined to maintain . In , the lack of regulation for ranks above superfamily exacerbates this, allowing subjective interpretations, whereas botany's explicit rules for orders and above provide greater consistency but still contend with phylogenetic revisions. These issues underscore the tension between nomenclatural fixity and taxonomic dynamism in higher-level .

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.