[Taxacom] Question about labelling types

[Karl Magnacca]

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> 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??

Because *this* is a strawman.  What you're talking about is not a
typical situation but an ideal one, where in fact there's no need
(or even ability) to designate a lectotype at all.  Even if you have
one misidentified specimen in the type series such that it requires
a lectotype, 80+ year old specimens are almost never in equally good
condition, usually not the same sex, and often not from the same
locality.  You can't make a general rule from a very specific
situation and then claim that the ones that are seen more frequently
are the exceptions.

Karl