[Taxacom] Question about labelling types

[John Grehan]

Geoff,

To help clarify my understanding of your argument - if the specimen
were later labelled
as the type by a curator or some other person, and  it is thus just a
syntype at this time, does it matter or not in any way if a subsequent
person chose, or not, to use the labelled specimen as the lectotype?

John Grehan

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

>
> 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 designated in accordance with an unpublished holotype *all other things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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>