3
$\begingroup$

I know they weren't required in the early 1800s but obviously they are now so just wondering when this started being required and/or who coined holotype. Internet research yielded no good answers.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Presumably botany and zoology receive slightly different answers. I would assume the foundation dates of the bodies that publish the ICN and ICZN are possible answers. As I understand it, use of type specimens was widely practiced and recommended from even before Linaeus; maybe in the 19th century there was a desire to codify the practice. It's not clear if you are asking when codification started or when the practice itself started. $\endgroup$ Mar 8 at 12:21
  • $\begingroup$ either is fine, i'm just trying to get a better understanding of whether i can expect there to be a type specimen based on the year of publication $\endgroup$
    – imrobert
    Mar 8 at 17:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ According to iapt-taxon.org/historic/index.htm , the first edition of the ICN dates to 1867. See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Botanical_Congress , which says this was at the 4th meeting of the IBC, in Paris in 1867. $\endgroup$ Mar 8 at 18:31

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

As far as botany is concerned, the concept of type specimen and obligation of using one was introduced in the 1935 version of the code (the so-called Cambridge Rules).

For zoology, surprisingly, it is only compulsory to explicitely name a name-bearing specimen since 1999, when the 4th (and current) edition of the ICZN code was published.

The term 'holotype' though (and the concept of typification) is older. The earliest occurrence I can find is in this short communication in the journal Science from 1897: What is a type in Natural History? by Charles Schuchert.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.