[Taxacom] Question about labelling types

[Geoffrey Read]

No it is not a side issue. It is central to what action to take if you're
going to be rigorously cautious. If an author designated a specimen as
holotype it is highly likely that he would happily record that fact in
1916. Therefore it is reasonable to assume it is more likely that it is a
later labelling by a curator, and thus just a syntype at this time. Noting
it was mentioned that a later author had decided they were syntypes (did
this person see the specimens and labels?). Depending on how the museum
keeps its records it might be possible to tell if it was labelled in the
museum registry as a holotype at accessioning/registration of all the
specimens sent in, or is a post hoc supposition (say written in a
different ink or handwriting). I'm assuming the museum keeps separate
records of holotypes.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but strange things can happen in one hundred years
of storage in a museum.

Geoff

On Sun, February 28, 2016 5:19 pm, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> 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 designated in accordance with an unpublished holotype *all other things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.
>


--
Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
8 Zaida Way, Maupuia
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
gread at actrix.gen.nz