[Taxacom] Question about labelling types

[Geoff Read]

By whom?  Exactly. A label in a museum collection of "holotype" when the
original paper did not name one is just not to be trusted on its own. 
Museum curators decades later may have thought they had identified a
holotype, added the label for convenience, but be mistaken. There may even
have been past curators who selected a holotype on their own initiative  -
one would hope not too many of those about - altering the evidence in
effect.

Geoff
________________________________________
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Stephen
Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Sent: 28 February 2016 13:54
To: Stephen Thorpe; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Julio Rivera;
FranciscoWelter-Schultes
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Question about labelling types

>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.