[Taxacom] Question about labelling types
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Feb 28 14:40:57 CST 2016
2016
I disagree! All other things are often equal in this scenario. At any rate, we want to avoid scenarios like this hypothetical example:
A reviser wants to be seen to be making a difference. Suppose there are 10 syntypes, 9 of which are the species that the original author intended to name, but 1 syntype is a poor specimen of a closely related long ago described species. So, the reviser designates the latter as lectotype, synonymises the species, and describes a new species with the other 9 syntypes! That might well best meet the needs of the reviser!
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 29/2/16, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Question about labelling types
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Monday, 29 February, 2016, 9:15 AM
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
_______________________________________________
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.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list