[Taxacom] Question about labelling types

[David Redei]

In my practice I always proceed as Mike and Geoff proposed.

1. Identify the specimens which are syntypes (1a, undoubtedly syntypes, 1b,
potential syntypes).

2. If there is more than one syntype, select the one which is most suitable
for designating it as lectotype. For this, I usually consider:

2a. Which one fits the original morphological description and locality
information the best;
2b. if the material is not conspecific, which one fits the interpretation
of the species prevailing in the literature;
2c. which one is in the best condition;
2d. which one is male (in my group male genitalia are more frequently
involved in identification, other taxa might have different criteria here);
2e. which one bears original identification or type label of the author.

2a-2e are not of equal importance. The last one is by far of the least
important, so in practice the actual decision is usually made based on
2a-2d. With other words, I disagree with Stephen's claim "only in
exceptional circumstances should another syntype be designated lectotype".
Of course it is frequently the case that the specimen most suitable for LT
designation also happen to bear the original labels of the author, but even
in this case it is selected because it meets the criteria 2a-2d (and even
2e), and not merely because it bears the labels. The statement "only in
exceptional circumstances should another syntype be designated lectotype"
is simply too strong.

I agree with Mike's comment: "all things are never equal". Indeed, if there
are more than one syntypes, they usually differ at least in their condition
and sex (2c-2d). Moreover, I believe that Stephen makes a logical flaw when
he makes the "all other things being equal" requirement, but then
fabricates a scenario about 10 syntypes which are not even conspecific.
Yes, in his example the reviser indeed did not follow the best possible
practice, but his mistake was primarily the violation of 2b and 2c, and not
the violation of 2e.

Sincerely,

David Redei


On 29 February 2016 at 05:43, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:

> Well I did initially leave out the ceteris paribus clause, but I figured I
> could clarify later if needed. I didn't anticipate people with too much
> time on their hands jumping on my initial words and accusing me of being
> wrong before I had chance to clarify, but whatever floats your boat ...
>
> 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, 10:26 AM
>
>  Stephen,
>
>  Your understanding of English
>  is better than that -- you made an
>  unequivocal assertion of fact. Nothing about
>  opinion, nothing about all
>  things being
>  equal, just one of your pontifications as fact. Your fact
>
>  was wrong, and even if you had properly
>  labeled it, your opinion
>  incorrect as
>  stated.
>
>  Mike
>
>