[Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code

[Barry OConnor]

I'm still having difficulty resolving this one. I've always thought that
the ICZN does not allow photographs or illustrations to BE types, only that
they are photos or illustrations of the actual living/dead animal specimen
that WAS the type. Thus, I assume that a neotype could be designated if
necessary even if the original photograph or illustration of the (missing,
escaped, freed) animal specimen that WAS the type is still extant. I
believe the Botanical Code does allow illustrations themselves to be types,
but I'm no expert on that code. - Barry


On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu> wrote:

> On 4/15/14 2:27 PM, Fautin, Daphne G. wrote:
> > Sorry, but the illustration is not the type.  The Code clearly
> stipulates that it is the individual illustrated that is the type --
> Article 72.5.6.
> >
> I admit I did not make the nuances here entirely clear, and John Noyes
> phrased it better:
>
> On 4/15/14 10:10 AM, John Noyes wrote:
> > Being a bit nitpicky about this, the code here (Art. 73.1.4) does NOT
> > allow the designation of an illustration (per se) as a type, it only
> > allows the specimen that is illustrated to be designated as a type. A
> > picture in itself cannot be designated as a holotype, only the
> > specimen that it illustrates.
> > In other words if the code meant that the picture itself were the
> > holotype then if that picture exists then it would not be possible to
> > designate a neotype for the species (without recourse to the ICZN).
> > However, if the illustrated specimen were destroyed then it would be
> > possible to designate a neotype of that species without recourse to
> > the ICZN so long as all the condition for designating a neotype were met.
> >
> You are both correct, and it relates to the "per se" qualification. Yes,
> this affects neotype designation, and while it's subtle, the distinction
> here is accurate; you can replace an illustration with a neotype exactly
> as if the holotype is lost, so an illustration is not actually a
> holotype even though it *can be* *designated* as such; the exact wording
> of the Code (with my emphasis added) is
>
> "Designation of an illustration of a single specimen as a holotype IS TO
> BE TREATED AS designation of the specimen illustrated"
>
> Thus you can, in fact, designate the illustration AS the type, but that
> does not mean that the photograph IS the type. We are all in agreement
> on this, it is simply that the phrasing is complicated.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> --
> Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
> Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
> phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
>               http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
>    "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>          is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>



-- 
-So many mites, so little time!

Barry M. OConnor
Professor  & Curator
Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology/Museum of Zoology

University of Michigan                  phone: 734-763-4354
1109 Geddes Ave.                          fax: 734-763-4080
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079          e-mail: bmoc at umich.edu