[Taxacom] Question about labelling types

[Stephen Thorpe]

>I see no recommendation that for lectotype designation a specimen labelled (by whom?) as a holotype should be given preference<

Commonsense dictates that (all other things being equal) it is better to designate as lectotype the specimen that was already labelled holotype. Only if there is some really good reason should one designate another syntype as lectotype. The Code does not state this, but it is commonsense not to be more disruptive than is absolutely necessary.

Stephen


--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 28/2/16, Welter-Schultes, Francisco <fwelter at gwdg.de> wrote:

 Subject: AW: [Taxacom] Question about labelling types
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Julio Rivera" <jrivera at lamolina.edu.pe>
 Received: Sunday, 28 February, 2016, 11:52 AM
 
 The status of the
 so-called holotype is a syntype, and I see no recommendation
 that for lectotype designation a specimen labelled (by
 whom?) as a holotype should be given preference. See
 Recommendations 74A-E where other points are listed which
 should induce preference choices.
 
 Recommendation 74A. Agreement with previous
 restriction. In designating a lectotype, in order to
 preserve stability of nomenclature an author should act
 consistently with, and in any event should give great weight
 to, previously accepted taxonomic restrictions of the
 application of the name.
 
 Recommendation 74B. Preference for illustrated
 specimen. Other things being equal, an author who designates
 a lectotype should give preference to a syntype of which an
 illustration has been published.
 
 Recommendation 74C. Data on the lectotype. An
 author who designates a lectotype should publish for it the
 data listed in Recommendation 73C, besides describing any
 individual characteristics by which it can be recognized.
 
 Recommendation 74D. Choice
 between syntypes in several collections. When possible, a
 lectotype should be chosen from syntypes in the collection
 of a public institution, preferably of the institution
 containing the largest number of syntypes of the nominal
 species-group taxon, or containing the collection upon which
 the author of the nominal species-group taxon worked, or
 containing the majority of that author's types.
 
 Recommendation 74E.
 Verification of locality. When selecting a lectotype, the
 author should, if possible, verify the accuracy of the
 locality ascribed to it. A syntype of known locality should
 be preferred to one of unknown origin.
 
 Cheers
 Francisco 
 ________________________________________
 Von: Taxacom [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]&quot;
 im Auftrag von &quot;Stephen Thorpe [stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
 Gesendet: Samstag, 27. Februar 2016 23:42
 An: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
 Julio Rivera
 Betreff: Re: [Taxacom] Question
 about labelling types
 
 Julio,
 
 They
 are syntypes, but the one labelled as holotype should be
 chosen as lectotype (if a lectotype is to be designated).
 
 Cheers,
 
 Stephen
 
 --------------------------------------------
 On Sun, 28/2/16, Julio Rivera <jrivera at lamolina.edu.pe>
 wrote:
 
  Subject: [Taxacom]
 Question about labelling types
  To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
 <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
  Received: Sunday, 28 February, 2016, 11:07
 AM
 
  Hi taxacomers
 
  I have a situation with the
 type series of a praying mantis
  species.
 Giglio-Tos
  (1916) described *Diamusonia
 media* (now *Thespis media*) on
  the basis
 of
  three specimens. Giglio-Tos did not
 designate any particular
  specimen as
  the type. Although these specimens were
 presumed to be
  syntypes in at least
  one subsequent publication, I recently
 discovered that one
  of these
  specimens does bear a holotype label. So, if
 the label
  identifies the
 
 specimen as the holotype but it was not explicitly
  designated as such in
  the
 original description, What is the name-bearing status of
  this specimen?
  Still a
 holotype?
 
  Thanks in
 advance for your advice.
 
 
 Regards,
 
 
 
 --
 
  *Julio
 Rivera*Associated Researcher
  ZOOTAXA Editor
 for Insecta-Mantodea
  Postal Address:
  Museo de Entomología *Klaus Raven Buller*
  Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina
  Apartado Postal 456
  Lima
 100
  Peru
  E.mail: jrivera at lamolina.edu.pe
  <jrivera at lamolina.edu.pe>Skype:
  julio.rivera.mantodea
 
 Telephone: (+1) 416-585-8046
 
 _______________________________________________
  Taxacom Mailing List
  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 
  Channeling Intellectual
 Exuberance for 29 years in 2016.
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 
 Channeling Intellectual
 Exuberance for 29 years in 2016.