[Taxacom] Question about labelling types

[John Grehan]

But in this case if its one of three that are agreed as being the original
series would it not matter whether the type label was from the original
author or someone else? If that is the case Steven seems to be saying that
it makes more sense (all else being equal) to re-label that specimen as a
lectotype rather than choosing another specimen and having two specimens
with a type label which might add confusion in the future.

John Grehan

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>