[Taxacom] Question about labelling types

[Stephen Thorpe]

Geoff,
You are conflating all over the place! A syntype is a syntype whether or not the original author added a holotype label to it. It only depends on whether it was designated as holotype in the original description (reference) or not. If no holotype was so designated, but a syntype bears a holotype label (added by whoever, whenever) then, all other things being equal, that specimen should be designated as lectotype, if a lectotype is to be designated. This is to ensure that anybody who wrongly assumed it to be the holotype (and maybe based published taxonomy on that incorrect assumption) did at least use the same specimen as will turn out to be the genuine primary type (lectotype). Only in exceptional circumstances should another syntype be designated lectotype.
Stephen

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

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Question about labelling types
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Sunday, 28 February, 2016, 6:41 PM
 
 
 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