Property talk:P427
Documentation
type genus or species: [in zoology:] nominal genus or species that is the name-bearing type of this nominal family or genus (or family-group ranked taxon or subgenus) [in botany unofficial]
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P427#Type Q16521, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P427#Item P225, search, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P427#Item P171, search, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P427#Item P105, search, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P427#allowed qualifiers, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P427#Scope, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P427#Entity types
This property is being used by:
Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
|
Remark
[edit]Types are nomenclatural in nature rather than taxonomic. A type can be several things: it is safe to say that the type of a name of a species (or subspecies, etc) is usually a type specimen. However, this is a rather general statement which can be misread all too easily.
A statement often encountered is that a type always is a type specimen, and this is not correct. What would be correct is that in zoology a type of a name of a species or subspecies always is a type specimen (if in fact there is a type, and there may not be). This statement is not correct for algae, fungi & plants, or for prokaryotes. It also would not be correct to say that in zoology a type always is a type specimen, as the type of a name of a genus or subgenus is a species (the type species), and the type of a name of a family, subfamily, etc is a genus (the type genus). Etc.
P.S. Note that a type does not define a taxon. Defining a taxon is done by a taxonomist, and a particular taxon (with one particular fixed type) may have any number of competing definitions (circumscriptions). The function of a type is to act as an anchor for a taxon: as scientific names are connected to types, types are vital for determining the correct name. - Brya (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Problem?
[edit]What about the type for a species, which is a physical specimen held somewhere? How is this accommodated here? (Or do we only envisage types above the species level, but even they are anchored by a paricular physical (in general) specimen... MargaretRDonald (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- I posted this question on Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy. — The Erinaceous One 🦔 07:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Constraints
[edit]Hello, some changes I made have been reverted; see the taxonomic type (P427) entry on Mellivora (Q13564654) and Articles 67ff. of International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Q13011) for how this is/was working. Is there a reason for the reversion? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)