[Taxacom] Plant nomenclature query

[Stephen Thorpe]

Interesting, thanks. In zoology the availability (=validity ICBN)?of a name is not affected by any facts?external to the publication (though this may fall apart in some scenarios?) If a type is missing or lost or destroyed, then no matter unless there is some?exceptional need for a primary type. Under some such circumstances a neotype can be designated ..
?
Stephen


________________________________
From: Michael Sundue <sundue at gmail.com>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
Cc: Matt Buys <Matt.Buys at scionresearch.com>; "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
Sent: Friday, 4 April 2014 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Plant nomenclature query



See article 9 on typification in the ICBN. ?In this case I believe that a lectotype should be designated from one of the isotypes. As far as I understand, the name should still be validly published. This would not be different from a situation where the holotype was lost or destroyed.? 

http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art9#9.14

	* 9.2.?A lectotype is a specimen or illustration designated from the original material as the nomenclatural type, in conformity with Art.?9.11?and?9.12, if no holotype was indicated at the time of publication, or if the holotype is missing, or if a type is found to belong to more than one taxon (see also Art.?9.14). For sanctioned names, a lectotype may be selected from among elements associated with either or both the protologue and the sanctioning treatment (Art.?9.10).
--Michael



On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

I would be interested in reading what the Plant Code says about this. Can anyone point me to the relevant Article(s) of the Code?
>?
>For zoology, there is no (nomenclatural) problem, as all that is required is a statement of intention to deposit (see http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?article&nfv=true#4)
>?
>Stephen
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Matt Buys <Matt.Buys at scionresearch.com>
>To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>Sent: Friday, 4 April 2014 2:05 PM
>Subject: [Taxacom] Plant nomenclature query
>
>
>
>Hi.
>
>An author has published a new species and cities a holotype deposited in one herbarium, and a host of isotypes deposited in other herbaria.? It turns out the holotype specimen was never deposited.? Only some of the isotypes have been deposited. What to do now?? Would one of the isotypes become the holotype by default, do you have to officially designate one isotype as the "new" holotype, etc.?
>
>Yours
>
>M@
>
>________________________________
>
>
>This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is confidential or subject to copyright. If you receive this e-mail in error, please delete it.
>Scion does not accept responsibility for anything in this e-mail which is not provided in the course of Scion's usual business or for any computer virus, data corruption, interference or delay arising from this e-mail.
>_______________________________________________
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org/
>
>
>Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>_______________________________________________
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org/
>
>Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>