This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Holotype article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Perhaps reference to the official definitions will be more clear about this - but there is a subtle difference betweeen how a neotype is defined in this article and how it is defined in biological types - Marshman 20:33, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Who is the human holotype? 86.9.73.56 16:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
As this is phrased to cover more than one Code of nomenclature, this remains a nightmare, full of confusing weasel words. It really should be split. Brya 08:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't this info be better off if merged with type specimen? FunkMonk ( talk) 19:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Isotype redirects here, but it isn't mentioned anywhere. Can someone add something or otherwise remove the redirect? Jalwikip ( talk) 14:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused about the definition. These statements are made:
Is it also true that a holotype is not necessarily typical of the species?
Statements c and d contradict.
It's difficult to tell what's going on. Are holotypes necessary or not? Can the specimens be changed or not? Can someone, for example, decide to create a holotype to anticipate a future need? Leptus Froggi ( talk) 04:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Page watchers are invited to weigh in at the discussion at Talk:Carl Linnaeus#Type specimen regarding the type specimen of H. sapiens. Umimmak ( talk) 09:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
the first paragraph says a holotype can be one thing or one of many parts of things, and later the article says like a dinosaur leg fossil can be a holotype, and in this instance, since holotype is so limited, neotypes and other types can be established for research. so was the dinosaur leg just part of that whole dino's body, and the parts were all found in the same place at the same time, and the leg was the best preserved of all the parts found and chosen as the holotype for that reason?
and then on the last or second last paragraph, it says a holotype can be an individual (article uses noun usage of the word 'individual' incorrectly to describe a creature also here), living creature, and that holotypes can be lost for this reason (if the creature is left and lost in the wild for instance). I can only imagine that living creature in this case would.be designated the holotype because it was the first instance.of that creatures discovery? right?
if im right, the "first" discovery aspect of what a holotype is should be elaborated on a little. if im wrong, this article makes very little sense at all.
2600:1700:DF50:A1F0:D95F:DBDA:BF23:39E1 (
talk)
17:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Holotype article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Perhaps reference to the official definitions will be more clear about this - but there is a subtle difference betweeen how a neotype is defined in this article and how it is defined in biological types - Marshman 20:33, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Who is the human holotype? 86.9.73.56 16:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
As this is phrased to cover more than one Code of nomenclature, this remains a nightmare, full of confusing weasel words. It really should be split. Brya 08:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't this info be better off if merged with type specimen? FunkMonk ( talk) 19:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Isotype redirects here, but it isn't mentioned anywhere. Can someone add something or otherwise remove the redirect? Jalwikip ( talk) 14:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused about the definition. These statements are made:
Is it also true that a holotype is not necessarily typical of the species?
Statements c and d contradict.
It's difficult to tell what's going on. Are holotypes necessary or not? Can the specimens be changed or not? Can someone, for example, decide to create a holotype to anticipate a future need? Leptus Froggi ( talk) 04:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Page watchers are invited to weigh in at the discussion at Talk:Carl Linnaeus#Type specimen regarding the type specimen of H. sapiens. Umimmak ( talk) 09:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
the first paragraph says a holotype can be one thing or one of many parts of things, and later the article says like a dinosaur leg fossil can be a holotype, and in this instance, since holotype is so limited, neotypes and other types can be established for research. so was the dinosaur leg just part of that whole dino's body, and the parts were all found in the same place at the same time, and the leg was the best preserved of all the parts found and chosen as the holotype for that reason?
and then on the last or second last paragraph, it says a holotype can be an individual (article uses noun usage of the word 'individual' incorrectly to describe a creature also here), living creature, and that holotypes can be lost for this reason (if the creature is left and lost in the wild for instance). I can only imagine that living creature in this case would.be designated the holotype because it was the first instance.of that creatures discovery? right?
if im right, the "first" discovery aspect of what a holotype is should be elaborated on a little. if im wrong, this article makes very little sense at all.
2600:1700:DF50:A1F0:D95F:DBDA:BF23:39E1 (
talk)
17:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)