[Taxacom] Paralectotype question

[Stephen Thorpe]

Here is one way in which syntypes/paralectotypes might be important: The original description is poor and leaves it entirely uncertain which species was being described. The only way to identify the species is to examine the syntypes. You might say that you only need to examine the lectotype, but what if the lectotype designation was a poor choice (perhaps designated as a matter of curatorial routine, but lacking diagnostic characters)? Of course, there might be a mixed type series, which would add further problems, but if not, then the name could justifiably be used to refer to the species represented by all the paralectotypes, but one would have to be careful not to add a bogus "paralectotype" which could belong to another species (despite having the same collecting labels).

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 21/4/17, Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Paralectotype question
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Friday, 21 April, 2017, 8:35 AM
 
 Paralectotypes are not necessary
 at all. The Code could equally remove 
 that
 status, it has no meaning. Paralectotypes can be selected as
 
 neotypes if the lectotype is lost, but any
 other specimen could also 
 serve as a
 neotype.
 The term might be useful for the
 labelling in collections. However this 
 is
 just to replace the term "syntype" after a
 lectotype designation.
 Your objections apply
 to syntypes. If you provide evidence that a 
 particular specimen initially regarded or
 labelled as a syntype was not 
 seen by the
 author of the description, then this specimen is not a
 syntype.
 
 -----
 Francisco
 
 Am
 20.04.2017 um 22:18 schrieb Stephen Thorpe:
 > Francisco said "Paralectotyes are
 automatically those syntypes which were not designated as
 lectotype (Art. 74.1.3)"
 >
 > Yes, but in practice, there may be less
 than conclusive evidence that a particular specimen is a
 syntype. Even if it is from the same collecting event as all
 the other syntypes, the collector may have, for example,
 held one back (just in case of loss in transit) but sent the
 others to the author for description (if collector and
 author aren't the same person). At the end of the day,
 it comes to "so what?" Is it important to have an
 extra paralectotype for some reason? In most cases probably
 not, so time would be better spent moving on ...
 >
 > Stephen
 >
 >
 --------------------------------------------
 > On Fri, 21/4/17, Francisco Welter-Schultes
 <fwelter at gwdg.de>
 wrote:
 >
 >  Subject:
 Re: [Taxacom] Paralectotype question
 > 
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 >  Received: Friday, 21 April, 2017, 7:21
 AM
 >
 >  I agree
 entirely with Adam.
 >  During the act of
 lectotype designation it
 >  is not
 required that the author who designates
 >  the lectotype saw or even
 >  knew all the
 > 
 other syntypes. Paralectotyes are automatically those
 >  syntypes which were not designated as
 lectotype
 >  (Art. 74.1.3).
 >
 >  Francisco
 >