Talk:Type (zoology)

I am not going to get involved here, but this does not look all that good to me.

I would like to note that the replaced "A type specimen is a phrase that was used in previous editions of the Code for ..." is an exact quote from the current Code, while the new material is at odds with the ICZN. Brya 09:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It may not look "all that good" but it is not inaccurate
The phrase "used in previous editions of the Code" does not (and should not be interpreted to) actually imply that the term "type specimen" is not still in use; merely that the Code does not formally recognize the term, because of its imprecision. That is not going to be immediately obvious to laymen, I suspect, and it is best to avoid that phrasing. Not everything in an encyclopedic treatment such as WP has to be a verbatim quotation of original material, nor only acknowledge technical definitions. It is simpler to explain to the readers what terms are in use and what they mean. I have a copy of the present Code here in front of me, and while I see some parts of the WP article are simplified relative to the Code itself, there is nothing genuinely contradictory. At most, a few exceptions to general rules have been omitted, but it hardly seems worth including the phrase "...unless someone petitions the ICZN..." in multiple places simply to indicate that the rules can be broken. I'll look this over carefully again, but I think you are overly concerned about how explicitly the technical details are presented, when this is intended as a general summary. 138.23.134.119 20:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC) - Sorry - was unlogged in Dyanega 20:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)