{"version": "1.0", "type": "rich", "title": "Oh, oh! But that\u2019s not all. So in modern taxonomy there\u2019s a concept called a \u201ctype specimen.\u201d This is a preserved corpse, image,...", "author_name": "kontextmaschine", "author_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com", "provider_name": "kontextmaschine", "provider_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com", "url": "https://kontextmaschine.com/post/165568224328/", "html": "

squareallworthy:

\n

nentuaby:

\n
\n

Oh, oh! But that\u2019s not all.

So in modern taxonomy there\u2019s a concept called a \u201ctype specimen.\u201d This is a preserved corpse, image, or detailed description which defines a type (species or genus). All the other attributes of a type definition basically amount to \u201cis this close enough to Type Specimen XYZ to be called the same thing as it?\u201d In the event that thinking on where the boundaries are set changes (and that happens ALL THE TIME) whatever\u2019s on the same side of the new boundary keeps the old type; anything placed on the other side needs a new name. (And a new type specimen is selected for that new group.)

Now, this is a fairly recent innovation\u2013 older taxonomical systems going back to Linnaeus thought things would be more static than that, so they didn\u2019t feel the need to have a system for what to do in the event of changes. Now, the rule for type specimens is that they have to be one the person who originally came up with the species knew / got to examine. For most of the species Linnaeus described, he\u2019d worked from a specific specimen anyway, and at least a detailed description was preserved, so that was OK.

\n

Problem was Homo sapiens. His description of us amounted to, well, \u201cdis us.\u201d So the modern taxonimists trying to retrofit THAT to up-to-date standards had to sit down and have a good think. And what they came up with was \u201cWell\u2026 There\u2019s one specimen of humanity we know for absolute certain Linnaeus examined in great detail. And there are images preserved, and we know where the remains are.\u201d

So Carl Linnaeus is not just human\u2026 Carl Linnaeus is the one person who, no matter what the heck weird changes may happen in taxonomy, is human by definition.

\n
\n

For those interested in all the technicalities on how exactly Linnaeus qualifies as the type specimen of Homo sapiens, here is an article from the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

\n

The upshot is that if you are Carl Linnaeus, then by International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, you are VALID, and no one else is.

\n
\n", "thumbnail_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com/media/tumblr_osujxgZRcn1s8f7awo1_640_2308715bb86e.jpg", "thumbnail_width": 640, "thumbnail_height": 811}