[Taxacom] Question about labelling types

[Stephen Thorpe]

Let's keep this simple, Geoff! The "by whom" is a side issue. Even if a holotype is designated in an original description, one might still not know who added the holotype label to a specimen, but one assumes it was the original author. The main point here is that a lectotype should be designated in accordance with an unpublished holotype *all other things being equal*, regardless of who added the holotype label.

Stephen


--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 28/2/16, Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Question about labelling types
 To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Sunday, 28 February, 2016, 2:13 PM
 
 
 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.