[Taxacom] sale of type specimens

[Adam Cotton]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Grehan" <calabar.john at gmail.com>
To: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 11:01 PM
Subject: [Taxacom] sale of type specimens


>I would be interested to know from the code buffs on the list what the
> zoological code says, if anything, about the commercial sale of type
> specimens. I am curious as I came across an eBay example of a paratype
> being sold (I suspect it is from a private collection because there were
> many paratypes assigned for private collection specimens).
>
> The fact (assuming the claim is true) that the specimen is a paratype 
> seems
> to be used as a justification for a high bidding price. It would seem that
> there would be a lot of room for fraudulent sales if the type label is
> printed rather than handwritten.
>
> John Grehan
>

The Code does not actually have any regulation covering commercial sale of 
type specimens.

In reality some people do describe new taxa with large series of paratypes, 
sometimes running into several hundreds. Some of these will inevitably end 
up in commercial hands, either because the author sold them himself (I know 
that some people do this in order to cover the costs of their expeditions to 
collect the new taxa - this often is the case with Parnassius for example, 
where expeditions to high mountains can be very expensive) or because the 
author gave the specimens to private collectors/researchers and their 
collections end up on the market, often because family don't appreciate the 
scientific value of the collection after the owner's death.

In reality, though, only the holotype is the name-bearing type specimen 
(there has to be a holotype if there are paratypes, otherwise all the type 
series would be syntypes with equal name-bearing status) and paratypes are 
merely other specimens designated in the original description as belonging 
to the new taxon. Generally all specimens of the new taxon apart from the 
holotype are designated as paratypes, although some specimens examined may 
be expressly excluded in the original description. Paratypes are really just 
representatives of the taxon and some may not even necessarily be the same 
taxon as the holotype in the subjective opinion of subsequent authors. They 
are only really relevant as types in the case that the holotype is lost or 
destroyed, as it is recommended that if possible a paratype should be chosen 
when designating a neotype.

What is of much more serious concern is when holotypes or syntypes are put 
on the commercial market for sale, since these are name-bearing types. Of 
course normally these would be deposited in museums, and it is recommended 
that the author should state the intended repository in his publication of 
the new taxon.

Just a few weeks ago I actually managed to 'rescue' a holotype of a taxon 
described from a single specimen (in this case there are no paratypes that 
could be designated as neotype to replace it if necessary). An Australian 
dealer/collector contacted me since he felt he could not accept 
responsibility for safekeeping of the holotype which he had bought from a 
Japanese about 8 years ago. I agreed to exchange it for specimens from here 
so he could recoup the amount he paid for it after I confirmed that it was 
indeed the holotype by examining photos of the specimen. I have since 
received the specimen which came with labels and the original description, 
and it is indeed the 'real thing'. The next time I visit the UK I will 
donate the specimen to the BMNH along with paratypes of some taxa I have 
co-authored (none of the holotypes of these are in my collection, by the 
way).

The senior author of the taxon was a Japanese dealer with a dubious 
reputation, and amusingly it has worked out well in the end, as the holotype 
should have been deposited at a museum in Fukushima(!) if the author had 
followed the statement in the original description.

Adam.