[Taxacom] Question about labelling types

[Stephen Thorpe]

When I said: They are syntypes, but the one labelled as holotype should be chosen as lectotype (if a lectotype is to be designated).

I didn't say anything that was wrong or misleading! I didn't say that it was a rule (or recommendation) in the Code. I just offered my opinion that one should, all other things being equal, designate the unpublished holotype as lectotype (if a lectotype is needed). If you read more into it than was there, that's your bad. Taxacom is, after all, a forum for opinions.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 29/2/16, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Question about labelling types
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Monday, 29 February, 2016, 10:07 AM
 
 Disagree all you want, it
 does not matter.  Nothing in the Code or 
 anything else will protect us from those with
 poor decision making 
 skills, we just hope
 that usually people will make good decisions, for 
 the others, we can only shake our heads.  But,
 trying to suggest rules 
 like you have is
 simply pointless -- not going to happen, not going to 
 be in the rules, not going to be followed, and
 for the most part, that 
 is for the best. 
 Asserting an answer as if  there is such a rule, as 
 you did here:
 > Julio,
 >
 > They are syntypes,
 but the one labelled as holotype should be chosen as
 lectotype (if a lectotype is to be designated).
 >
 > Cheers,
 >
 > Stephen
   is misleading and counter productive, as
 well as wrong.
 
 One can only
 hope that the reviser will take all things into account and
 
 choose what will best contribute to
 stability, but there are those who 
 think
 making changes makes them important. Can't fix those
 types, they 
 are just something we  have to
 live with.
 
 Mike
 
 On 2/28/2016 1:40 PM, Stephen
 Thorpe wrote:
 > 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
 >   
 >
 >   >   _______________________________________________
 >   >   > 
 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.
 >
 > .
 >
 
 -- 
 __________________________________________________
 
 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