[Taxacom] Question about labelling types

[John Grehan]

This is an example where all things are not equal and of course those
factors will affect whatever decision is made.

John Grehan

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 5:00 AM, Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

>
> Let's say the specimens are not identical and not all perfect. Then it
> matters that the decision is constrained unjustifiably towards maybe a
> less suitable lectotype. Or let's say that the specimens are in fact
> detectably now two or more species. Then it matters that the decision
> which species the name is partnered with is unjustifiably not the revisors
> to make.
>
> Geoff
>
>
> On Sun, February 28, 2016 9:34 pm, John Grehan wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
>