[Taxacom] Question about labelling types
Michael A. Ivie
mivie at montana.edu
Sun Feb 28 14:15:33 CST 2016
2016
All things are never equal, the illegitimate holotype label is
meaningless and should be ignored when deciding which Syntype best meets
the need of the reviser doing the Lectotype designation.
Mike
On 2/28/2016 1:04 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> 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
> > initiativeÂ
> -
> > 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.
--
__________________________________________________
Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
US Post Office Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA
UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59718
USA
(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list