[Taxacom] Question about labelling types

[Geoffrey Read]

There's not much in it. But it's known 'holotype' is definitely wrong as a
label , and the revisor should have a free choice of which is the best
syntype specimen for a lectotype. Whatever happens, the history should be
reported that specimen x was previously museum-labelled (background to
this unknown) as the holotype although a holotype was not designated in
the publication.

Geoff


On Sun, February 28, 2016 3:24 pm, John Grehan wrote:
> 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.