Search the Taxacom archive · Browse by month · Mirror of the former lists.ku.edu archive (1992–2025)

Taxacom: Neotypification and common usage

Francisco Welter-Schultes fwelter at gwdg.de
Sat Dec 10 10:13:31 CST 2022 

Dear Daniel,
I assume you are talking about animals, not about parasitic plants.

For reliable statements I would need to see the original descriptions, 
and the cited sources Set 1 and Set 2.

I have not understood one decisive sentence:

"...and the original illustration is poor, but shows at least one 
potentially important character (setae in a certain area) which are 
absent in the illustration *and* in the remaining specimen, but present 
in the species that normally parasitizes this host."

Does the illustration (1) show the setae or does the illlustration (2) 
show reliably the absence of setae?

If 2 is true, then the neotype of Set 2 may be in conflict with Art. 
75.3.5, and thus invalid.

For determining the type series it is necessary to take into account 
published and unpublished evidence (Art. 72.4.1.1).

The term "prevailing usage" is indeed to poorly defined in the Code and 
the Glossary to provide a useful answer to your question. Moderately 
common consensus is that for qualifying for being a name in prevailing 
usage, a relatively high number of usages should be observed. This is 
reflected in the Cases judged by the Commission in the Bulletin that you 
observed (I agree absolutely with Thomas that there is no "case law" in 
zoological nomenclature). The Cases you observed in the Bulletin can 
only suggest that term is not thought for very rarely mentioned species.

If this helps for the moment.

Best wishes
Francisco


-----
Francisco Welter-Schultes

Am 10.12.2022 um 13:47 schrieb Daniel Gustafsson via Taxacom:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks a lot!
> 
> Set 1 seems to have operated under the assumption that the syntype 
> specimen was also the only original specimen (indicating that they also 
> didn't read the original description very carefully). The original 
> author stated that he first had only a single specimen (which may or may 
> not be the remaining syntype), but that he has subsequently obtained 
> others. There is no mention of how many specimens were examined in 
> total. I don't know whether this means that it could reasonably be 
> argued that there was only ever a single type specimen, and that the 
> other specimens could be considered non-types.
> 
> I believe it is a pretty safe bet that all other specimens in the 
> original type series are lost, and we will never know if the original 
> set seen by the author in 1842 were all conspecific or not. The original 
> author described over a hundred species, and no material of any of the 
> species he described (or the species he just recorded for the first time 
> from the UK) has ever turned up anywhere else but at the museum in 
> London, which claims that it bought all types from this collection in 
> 1852. They were originally card-mounted but at some point between 1852 
> and 1937 they were all slide-mounted by an unknown person. The syntype 
> slide is mounted and labelled in the exact same way as other specimens 
> from this collection, and there is no reason published by either set of 
> authors (or otherwise known to me) to assume that this specimen was not 
> in the collection bought in 1852 and slide-mounted before 1937. It is of 
> course possible that there was a mix-up during the slide-mounting (for 
> instance), and that the "true" syntypes are somewhere else in the London 
> collection, mislabelled, but it seems the Set 1 authors did not check 
> for this, and Set 2 were never even at this museum to examine the 
> collection.
> 
> If Set 1 (or anyone else) where to designate the syntype a lectotype by 
> asserting that the evidence available does not rule out that this was 
> one of the original specimens, does this override the neotype 
> designation? I interpret 75.8 as saying that this may be the case, but 
> that only discusses cases where the syntype was assumed to be lost, and 
> then is rediscovered.
> 
> Cheers,
> Daniel
> 
> 
> 
>> Daniel:
>>
>> As for your question on standards and possible limits for "common
>> usage", one of the underlying principles upon which the Code is based
>> is that "There is no "case law" in zoological nomenclature. Problems
>> in nomenclature are decided by applying the Code directly, and never
>> by reference to precedent. If the Commission is called on to make a
>> ruling on a particular case, the decision relates to that case alone".
>>
>> As for the specific issue, the authors behind Set 1 base their
>> decision on the wrong assumption that the syntype specimen is the
>> holotype. This specimen is a syntype (if it was one of the original
>> specimens seen by the author in 1842), but the fact that it is the
>> only specimen recovered does not give it any priority over the other
>> (and potentially lost) specimens in the type series. Any specimen in
>> the type series is eligible for being designated as a lectotype, but
>> considering the syntype to be a holotype does not qualify as a
>> lectotype designation for designations made after 1999. Set 1
>> therefore does not solve the central issue of a possibly mixed type
>> series.
>>
>> Set 2 rests on their arguments that what has been called a syntype
>> specimen is actually NOT part of the original set of specimens seen by
>> the author in 1842. If their arguments are accepted, their designation
>> of a neotype is valid (if fulfilling other conditions provided by the
>> Code), and the name proposed by the authors of Set 1 is a junior
>> synonym. [NB: neoparatypes are not recognized by the Code.]
>>
>> A thorough assessment rests on whether or not the single syntype is
>> actually a syntype, and whether or not this specimen is in a condition
>> that allows for a reliable taxonomic decision.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Daniel
>> Gustafsson via Taxacom
>> Sent: 10. december 2022 05:59
>> To: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
>> Subject: Taxacom: Neotypification and common usage
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> I'm looking at a case where a parasite species was described about 180
>> years ago (1842) from what may be a mixture of species (amount
>> unknown), of which only a single syntype specimen remains.
>> Unfortunately, this syntype specimen appears to not be the same
>> species as has been reported from this host in the intervening 180
>> years. The original description is largely useless even to get to the
>> genus level, and the original illustration is poor, but shows at least
>> one potentially important character (setae in a certain area) which
>> are absent in the illustration *and* in the remaining specimen, but
>> present in the species that normally parasitizes this host. Two
>> authors in the 1960?1970s redescribed the species poorly, and this
>> redescription is of a different species than the syntype specimen,
>> which they did not examine.
>>
>> In 2020, two sets of authors discussed this species (one set in
>> reaction to the other), and reached different conclusions:
>>
>> Set 1 -- the syntype specimen (which they erroneously call the
>> 'holotype') is conspecific with the illustration and not contradicted
>> by the original description. Therefore, the name of this species can
>> follow the specimen, which thus is assumed to be from an unknown host.
>> The species of parasite that is normally found on this host thus needs
>> a new name, which they provide, including a description and
>> illustration and a review of the previous reports. They have visited
>> many of the museums where previously reported specimens are stored,
>> and invariably these are the same as the new species, and not the same
>> as the syntype specimen.
>> No further specimens conspecific with the syntype specimen have been
>> found, but the group is very poorly known so this is not a surprise.
>> These authors do not redescribe or illustrate the syntype specimen,
>> and appear to have made no efforts trying to compare this specimen
>> with other specimens in the same collection from the same collector
>> 180 years ago. The question of mix-up of specimens is thus open.
>>
>> Set 2 -- it cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt that the
>> syntype specimen is actually part of the original set of specimens
>> seen by the author in 1842, and much of his collection is lost. The
>> collection has changed hands at least once since 1842, it is unknown
>> who slide-mounted the specimens, and at least two earlier authors
>> contradict each other concerning which specimens were included in the
>> original purchase. It is therefore possible that the rest of the
>> original type series included the species normally found on this host,
>> and that the syntype specimen is either a mix-up, a contamination, or
>> some other form of error. All other reports of parasites in this genus
>> from this host have used the 1842 name, and for the purposes of
>> stability, we should continue to use this name and treat the new name
>> established by Set 1 as a subjective junior synonym. To this end, Set
>> 2 erects a neotype and four neoparatypes, which correspond to the
>> parasite species normally found on this host, as well as the one
>> illustrated and described as a new species by Set 1. Set 2 keeps the
>> door open to applying to the Commission for an official ruling if this
>> neotypification meets well-founded resistance.
>>
>> In the ~180 years between the original description and the revision,
>> there appear to be about 25?30 publications that use the old name for
>> this species. However, all except two of these are either just
>> inclusions in lists of members of a given genus, with no further
>> information added, or regional faunal lists where identity of the
>> specimens has been assumed based on host associations. Until 2020,
>> there has been no way to identify the original species either from
>> descriptions or illustrations, and as Set 1 also do not describe the
>> syntype specimen, this is still true.
>>
>> Without going into which set of authors is correct (although I'd value
>> input on this as well), I'm wondering about the process of setting
>> aside type specimens that are suddenly found not to represent the
>> common understanding of the species name. Where, if anywhere, is the
>> limit for "common usage" the stability of which could be threatened if
>> the names are changed? I've seen various case reports and opinions in
>> the Bulletin, where often authors will list a number of publications
>> within a certain framework to show that the name is in use, but is
>> there any official standard for this?
>>
>> Further, if there is an accepted official standard, is this affected
>> by the circumstances of usage? Apart from faunal lists where identity
>> is assumed based on host associations, there is no information of any
>> kind attached to this name between 1842 and the present. The 2020
>> authors also do not attach any new information beyond that the syntype
>> is not conspecific with the species normally found on the host.
>>
>> It would seem to me that this kind of usage would "count" towards any
>> kind of standard for the number of publications a name needs to appear
>> in to be commonly accepted. Is just listing a name without making any
>> effort to establish whether you're applying the name to the correct
>> taxon sufficient to assert that the name is in common, universal
>> usage?
>> Seems to me this would be rewarding laziness.
>>
>> I'd value any input on this.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Dr. Daniel R. Gustafsson, Research Assistant Professor Institute of
>> Zoology Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
>>
>> Ask me about chewing lice!
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu For
>> list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&amp;data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cdacd71b75804464807e808dadac97903%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638062856117572020%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=qKdu4H121eJmfDT1WVaz9TFO99xNUfnHMIanlHUEexg%3D&amp;reserved=0 
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at:
>> taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can
>> be searched at:
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cdacd71b75804464807e808dadac97903%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638062856117572020%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=ix0k2cVTs9AbSRMrW7sg8unZxKcIbt7SYVUYvA0%2FL6M%3D&amp;reserved=0 
>>
>>
>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration
>> for about 35 years, 1987-2022.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
>> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
>> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cdacd71b75804464807e808dadac97903%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638062856117572020%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=ix0k2cVTs9AbSRMrW7sg8unZxKcIbt7SYVUYvA0%2FL6M%3D&amp;reserved=0 
>>
>>
>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration
>> for about 35 years, 1987-2022.
>

More information about the Taxacom mailing list