[Taxacom] Question about labelling types

[Stephen Thorpe]

Karl does make the good point that there may be no need to designate a lectotype in some (many?) cases. Yet, I still see supposedly bona fide taxonomists publishing papers that consist of little more than exhaustive lectotype designations in advance of taxonomic revision of the group, as if it is an end in itself!

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 1/3/16, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Question about labelling types
 To: "Karl Magnacca" <kmagnacca at wesleyan.edu>
 Cc: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Tuesday, 1 March, 2016, 12:53 PM
 
 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.