>I was wondering if anyone would notice. Amazingly enough, Homo sapiens was
>not described by Linnaeus. Apparently, Robert Bakker (of Dinosaur fame) was
>searching for Linnaeus' original decription when he discovered no such
>description existed. He wanted the description so that he coul nominate the
>bones of Edward Drinker Cope as the human type specimen. So Bakker published
>an original description and submitted Cope's skull as the type specimen. I
>have searched for thge original citation, but can't find it as of yet. Just
>goes to show you how new species might be right under our noses...
 
Linnaeus's original description was the Latin equivalent of "Know thyself",
if I remember correctly, with no type specimen designated.  Because
Linnaeus wrote before the ICZN standardized things, his description has
generally been accepted as adequate.  Bakker's naming thus becomes a junior
synonym and homonym.  Similarly, Linnaeus and other early authors could get
by with referring to a figure rather than a specimen or even simply naming
a recognizable figure whereas now that would be inadequate as a description
for a new taxon.  Otherwise, a lot of well-known old names for shells and
other species would have to be thrown out.
 
David Campbell
 
"Old Seashells"
 
Department of Geological Sciences
CB 3315 Mitchell Hall
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill NC 27599-3315
USA
 
919-962-0685
FAX 919-966-4519
 
"He had discovered an unknown bivalve, forming a new genus"-E. A. Poe, The
Gold Bug