[Taxacom] Question about labelling types

[Scott Thomson]

I am curious here, other arguments aside. Is there a valid reason to set a
lectotype? you cannot do it because you want to there needs to be a
potential issue at hand. So what if they are syntypes, as long as they all
represent the same species. I do not see a museum label saying holotype as
an issue per se, I can see Stephens point that if you did feel the need to
set a lectotype then the one labelled as holotype would be a reasonable
choice, but first there must be a reason to do it.

Cheers, Scott

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:53 PM, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

> I get the impression that there is no conflict other than how frequent one
> or other situation might be. All other things being equal it might be
> considered the best option to use a previously labeled specimen. Perhaps in
> most cases all things are not equal, but whether nor not in most cases or
> not does not matter. So I don't see any straw men from either point of
> view.
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Karl Magnacca <kmagnacca at wesleyan.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>



-- 
Scott Thomson
Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo
Divisão de Vertebrados (Herpetologia)
Avenida Nazaré, 481, Ipiranga
04263-000, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
http://www.carettochelys.com
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
<https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#>
Skype: Faendalimas
Mobile Phone: +55 11 974 74 9095