lectotypes in NAF?

[guy REDEUILH]

Since no nomenclaturist seems to be online, I answer.

Obviously "Type locality" is not an "indication of the (lecto)type" and the types published with this indication alone are ineffective ! 
The (holo/lecto/neo)type is currently a specimen (or illustration), and such a specimen must be indicated non ambiguously in the publication.

G. Redeuilh

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Barbara Ertter 
To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG 
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 6:03 PM
Subject: lectotypes in NAF?


To botanical taxacomers:
Sitting down to tackle some lectotypification questions in Rosaceae,
I'm wondering what precedents exist for potential lectotypifications
in the North American Flora series (the one from NYBG, not the
current FNA effort).  Designation of type species of genera is
explicit enough, but in my interpretation the citation of "Type
locality" for each species questionably meets the requirements of
Art. 7.11, specifically:  "For purposes of priority, designation of a
type is achieved only if the type is definitely accepted as such by
the typifying author [and] if the type element is clearly indicated
by direct citation . . ."  From the wide spectrum of type localities
given (e.g., "Europe" for Chenopodium polyspermum), the citation of
type locality seems to me to be a simple repetition of the existing
state of knowledge, not an intentional designation of type where such
was needed.  I also note that Note 1 under Art. 37.3 specifies that :
"Mere citation of a locality does not constitute mention of a single
specimen or gathering", though this is specific to new species and
infraspecific taxa, not type designation of existing taxa.
How have others of you interpreted NAF "lectotypifications"?
Barbara Ertter
University and Jepson Herbaria
University of California at Berkeley
--