[Taxacom] Question about labelling types

[Stephen Thorpe]

There is no "logical flaw" in what I said! A typical scenario involves two or three syntypes all from the same locality, same sex and same condition (i.e. all other things are equal). If one of these has an (invalid) holotype label on it, then that one should be designated as lectotype. Otherwise, it may cause confusion (and museums typically treat anything with a holotype label on it as if it were a valid primary type, someone may have already published on it as if it were the valid primary type, and it is very bad practice to remove labels). Why are people trying hard to resist this simple piece of commonsense??

Stephen


--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 29/2/16, David Redei <david.redei at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Question about labelling types
 To: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Monday, 29 February, 2016, 1:33 PM
 
 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
 >
 >
 _______________________________________________
 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.