Taxacom: Neotypification and common usage
kotatsu at fripost.org
kotatsu at fripost.org
Tue Dec 13 01:23:41 CST 2022
2022
Dear Francisco,
Thank you so much for this detailed argument! Some comments:
1. The "syntype slide" labels probably do not actually contain the
information "leg. Denny", this is likely an assumption of Najer et al.
(2020), and a requirement (I believe) of the journal. I have worked with
other slides from the same collection, and they do not have "leg. Denny"
written on them, although I have never seen this specific slide in real
life. At the moment it seems impossible to download the digitized slides
from the NHML, but the louse-information of the slide is visible, and
states only: "Philopterus reguli Denny (1842) Type ?" in ink, with a
question mark added in pencil. It is visible here:
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata.nhm.ac.uk%2Fdataset%2F56e711e6-c847-4f99-915a-6894bb5c5dea%2Fresource%2F05ff2255-c38a-40c9-b657-4ccb55ab2feb%3Fq%3Dphilopterus%2Breguli%26view_id%3D6ba121d1-da26-4ee1-81fa-7da11e68f68e%26filters%3Dproject%253ASlide%2BProject%2B-%2BLouse%257CcollectionCode%253Abmnh%2528e%2529%26field%3DassociatedMediaCount%26value%3D&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C365544b058174a92a8c108dadcdafb71%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638065130334517929%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hGx12r%2FNx8vVs7bkvWoD2dbineLqJzPqyHf8o28EFnM%3D&reserved=0
2. Preserved syntype: You may be misinterpreting Mey's footnote, and he
certainly has not made it easy to understand what he's talking about.
- Thompson (1937) listed a number of specimens from Denny's collection
that were present at the NHML at the time. He does not detail whether
the specimens in the NHML collection are types or not, just list how
many are present. Under Philopterus reguli, he states that 1 ?" is
present at the NHML. Why Mey would drag up that this list is incomplete,
when it appears that the syntype specimen in question is clearly listed
in the table is unclear to me. Thompson's list is available here:
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fphthiraptera.myspecies.info%2Fcontent%2Flist-denny-collection-mallophaga-british-museum-natural-history-and-their-hosts&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C365544b058174a92a8c108dadcdafb71%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638065130334674146%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3j14g%2FuP3gu1NMMK0PWttfSNnGV8bIbSFxw3adNY604%3D&reserved=0
- Hopkins & Clay (1952) marked all species for which types (unclear if
this means only holotypes or just any name-bearing type specimen) were
present at the NHML with an asterisk. Philopterus reguli is marked with
an asterisk. However, they do not state how many specimens are there.
Hopkins & Clay's checklist is available here:
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fphthiraptera.myspecies.info%2Fcontent%2Fcheck-list-genera-species-mallophaga&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C365544b058174a92a8c108dadcdafb71%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638065130334674146%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yRbga3esiSL60IenCfCPo16b8H6nArRnoDtUyr1CXDw%3D&reserved=0
- Finally, Gray (1852) stated in his catalogue of specimens at the NHML
that "The British Museum possesses the type specimens described and
figured by [Henry Denny]" (Part XI here:
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fbibliography%2F1582&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C365544b058174a92a8c108dadcdafb71%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638065130334674146%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=b%2BXwSkuh1WnbXfMLjZzSjhL8zdyoeGxFiz2emuCeWEA%3D&reserved=0). He lists
Philopterus reguli, but does not state how many specimens there were.
Does this not suggest that it is plausible that -- however many
specimens Denny originally had -- the single female examined by Najer et
al. (2020) may be the same as that listed by Gray (1852), Thompson
(1937), and Hopkins & Clay (1952)? If so, does this not mean that there
is sufficient chance that the preserved syntype is actually a syntype,
and that 75.3.4 is not satisfied?
3. About 75.3.5 -- I think Mey is relying heavily of "other sources". He
belongs to a school of thought in which host associations take
precedence over louse morphology, host specificity is rigidly strict,
and co-evolution of lice and their hosts is always the case. His
neotype, for all I know, is consistent with the species that is normally
found on this host (i.e. "Ph. gustafssoni"), which was previously
redescribed and illustrated (as Ph. reguli) by one of Mey's teachers,
Jadwiga Zlotorzycka, who never saw a reason to use louse morphology if a
list of hosts could be used instead. Her redescriptions are all of "Ph.
gustafssoni", but she never examined any of Denny's specimens, and just
assumed identity based on host associations. She was one of those people
whose every publication set taxonomic knowledge back rather than advance
it...
4. The pronotal setae are difficult. They are not in the London specimen
according to Najer et al. (2020), which Mey (2020) accepts. They are
also not in Denny's Fig. 4. However, most lice have at least *some*
setae in this area (usually 1 on each side), and these are *never*
illustrated in any of Denny's figures, as far as I can see, even in
cases where these should be much longer and thicker than the setae that
are illustrated. Their absence in the illustration may therefore not
mean more than that Denny consistently overlooked these setae in all his
specimens, or that something in his preparation method meant they always
broke off, or who knows what. Mey may not consider this significant
since they are universally absent in Denny's figures, and thus not
decisive.
Much else I have to think about more, but thanks a lot for all your
work!
Cheers,
Daniel
> Dear Daniel,
> Thank you for the literature, this helped me a lot.
>
> At least three syntypes were reported in the original publication
> (Denny 1842: 41, 91).
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fitem%2F233506%23page%2F125%2Fmode%2F1up&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C365544b058174a92a8c108dadcdafb71%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638065130334674146%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VsmyAUEfzHRYJOkKwI6DCh%2BRGwBMHXhowTzNQbR9qck%3D&reserved=0
>
> Najer et al. 2020: 2, 18 assumed a holotype, this was not in accord
> with the original description.
> Mey 2020: 160 was correct that it was not a holotype, but his
> assumptions concerning Najer et al.'s intentions seem unsubstantiated.
> In footnote 5, Mey 2020: 160 stated that Najer et al. (2020: 32)
> claimed that P. reguli was described "only" from a female. I could not
> extract such an assumption in Najer et al.'s 2020: 32 discussion, they
> just talked of "the female described as Ph. reguli" which could have
> meant "the female name-bearing type specimen that we examined and that
> Denny described under the name P. reguli".
>
> Denny 1842: 91 did not exclude the additional specimens from the type
> series. It is possible that he studied only the first specimen for
> compiling description and figure, and that he obtained the other
> specimens after that. But the publication provides evidence (in the
> sense of Art. 72.4.1.1) that Denny did obtain the additional specimens
> before finishing the manuscript, that Denny considered them as
> belonging to P. reguli, and that the statement on the infraspecific
> variation was actually based on the information Denny extracted from
> the additional specimens. They were clearly syntypes.
>
> Preserved syntype:
> Najer et al. 2020: 18 reported a female specimen, "H. Denny leg.",
> NHML NHMUK010710741, ecat. 8192226.
> Mey 2020: 160, footnote 6 reported that following Thompson 1937, Clay
> 1947 and Hopkins & Clay 1952 no specimens of P. reguli were preserved
> in the British Museum (= NHML).
> Danny 1842: 91 reported that he had not collected the specimens
> himself, but that he had obtained them from others.
> So a specimen "H. Denny leg." would probably not be a syntype, because
> this indicated that Denny collected that specimen. It is possible that
> this was a mislabelling, but this is a speculation. Maybe it can be
> verified who labelled that specimen, to clarify that.
>
> Mey 2020: 160 appears to have been correct in his assumption that all
> syntypes were lost. He clearly satisfied Art. 75.3.4.
>
> From this point of view, and since Najer et al. 2020 have cast doubts
> on the identity of P. regulus, the conditions of a neotype designation
> ("exceptional need", Art. 75.3) were satisfied. On p. 160 Mey 2020
> explained this need (satisfying Art. 75.3.1).
>
> This does not mean that Mey's 2020 neotype designation is
> automatically valid, we have to look at the other conditions closely.
>
> Najer et al's 2020 examination of the so-called holotype is not
> entirely meaningless (because it provides evidence that real-life
> animals that corresponded with the original description of P. reguli
> Denny, 1842 did indeed exist), but that specimen has no nomenclatural
> relevance.
> The statement by Mey 2020: 161 sounds quite strange in a scientific
> publication:
> "(...) it is consistent to completely suppress the allegedly syntypic
> individual with dubious host origin, i.e. to exclude it from any
> further taxonomic evaluation as if it did not even exist."
> Had he written "nomenclatural evaluation" this would be less
> problematic.
>
> It is a requirement of the Code that if a neotype is designated, to
> provide "evidence that the neotype is consistent with what is known of
> the former name-bearing type from the original description and from
> other sources" (Art. 75.3.5).
> Najer et al. 2020 found a specimen that they reported to correspond
> with the original specimen Fig. 4, and Mey 2020 accepted that this
> speimen had a doubtful taxonomic identity. So it would have been
> necessary for Mey to compare that specimen with the specimen of Fig.
> 4.
> The thorough examination of a specimen that was presumably collected
> and determined by the original author Denny, even if not a syntype,
> falls clearly into this requirement. Mey's 2020 statement was a
> pronounced violation of Art. 75.3.5.
>
> Art. 75.3.6 requires that the author provides evidence that the
> neotype came as nearly as practicable from the original type locality.
> Mey 2020 did not discuss the type locality, he only reported that the
> neotype came from eastern Mecklenburg, northeastern Germany. Britain
> (the original type locality in the sense of Art. 75.3.6) is an
> accessible country, it would certainly be possible for a European
> scientist to obtain material from there, or to explain why this was
> not practicable. NE Germany was not "as nearly as practible" from
> Britain (the cited specimen No. 4 from eastern Holstein came from a
> locality closer to Britain - Mey did not explain why this was ignored
> and No. 2 was chosen). Art. 75.3.6 was clearly violated.
>
> Art. 75.3.3 requires "data and description" sufficient to ensure
> recognition of the specimen. Mey provided collection numbers and a
> figure of male genitalia of the neotype. So this was satisfied,
> however we have to rely on the detailed description of P. gustafssoni
> provided by Najer et al. 2020 (to which Mey referred
> bibliopgraphically, satidfying Art. 75.3.2) for extracting the
> taxonomic identity of the neotype. Mey 2020: 164 provided a figure
> with setae of a so-called "neoparatypus", but he did not indicate
> which one of the four listed candidate specimens it was. This was not
> a very careful study.
>
> Because the requirements of Arts. 75.3.5 and 75.3.6 were not
> satisfied, I would qualify Mey's 2020 neotype designation as invalid.
>
> Now you are assuming that Mey should have seen that the figured
> specimen of the original Denny 1842 publication differed from his
> neotype in some taxonomically relevant characters. Mey 2020 apparently
> did not see a difference between the figure and his neotype, however
> he violated Art. 75.3.5 anyway and did not consider the importance of
> the original description and the need to examine the British material.
> Mey did consider Denny's illustated specimen as conspecific with his
> neotype specimen.
>
> I cannot judge the setae in that certain area you are reporting, I am
> a malacologist and have to rely on your thorough examination and
> expertise in this point.
> I also understand that occasionally such lice are found on the wrong
> birds and then they are called stragglers. It seems to imply that they
> must have other hosts, unknown to the researcher.
>
> I understand that Denny 1842: Pl. VI Fig. 4 (reproduced by Mey 2020:
> 162 Fig. 4) do not show these setae, that P. gustafssoni in Najer et
> al. 2020 (p. 21 Fig. 6, p. 24: Fig. 7, p. 26 Fig. 8C-D) do show these
> setae. I also understand that experts would agree that these setae are
> taxonomically relevant. E. Mey was an expert - why did he not consider
> this?
>
> Mey 2020 did not know these differences and assumed that Denny's
> figure and this neotype were conspecific. This means he would have
> validly designated a neotype, had he not violated Art. 75.3.6 (and
> very probably also 75.3.5).
>
> The next step would consist in either validly designating a neotype,
> or, if the original description and Fig. 4 is sufficiently clear,
> designate the specimen illustrated in Fig. 4 as lectotype.
> A neotype would have to be consistent with the original description (=
> the same species as the lectotype, so, probably no exceptional need
> for a neotype), in terms of the setae, and come from Britain. And it
> must refer to a species that is not in accord with the traditional
> application of the name. Before a neotype is designated again, a
> serious author would examine again the British candidate syntype
> specimen and verify the labels.
>
> If this is considered to distort nomenclature then the Commission can
> be invoked. If the name P. reguli is widely used (I guess it is), then
> designating a neotype under the plenary power can be an option. This
> could be done under Art. 75.6, which requires that the existing type
> is not in accord with the prevailing usage. Designating a lectotype
> would be a precondition for applying Art. 75.6.
>
> It is rare that the original description provides a clear figure, and
> the prevailing usage refers to a different species for a very long
> time. It is an unusual case in this respect.
>
> Summary:
> Mey's 2020 neotype designation is invalid for having violated Art.
> 75.3.6 and probably also 75.3.5.
> The original description Denny 1842 reported at least 3 syntypes.
> Currently available information suggests that no syntype has been
> preserved. The specimen in the Natural History Museum should be
> verified again closely.
> If the original figure is sufficiently clear in that it represents a
> different species, not the one for which the name has been used, then
> either the Commission needs to be invoked, or P. gustafssoni would
> have to be used.
>
> If this helps
>
> Best wishes
> Francisco
>
> Am 12.12.2022 um 02:18 schrieb Daniel Gustafsson via Taxacom:
>> Dear Francisco and Thomas,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for both your help!
>>
>> Yes, this is indeed a parasitic animal. For full disclosure, it is the
>> species Philopterus reguli Denny, 1842, Set 1 is Najer et al. 2020
>> (https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fphthiraptera.myspecies.info%2Fnode%2F94995&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C365544b058174a92a8c108dadcdafb71%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638065130334674146%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bxDWQeWuB5%2F%2FSZdt06S8N72iyVg8bfJNNZRpbP7tmrM%3D&reserved=0),
>> and Set 2 is Mey 2020
>> (https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fphthiraptera.myspecies.info%2Fnode%2F95393&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C365544b058174a92a8c108dadcdafb71%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638065130334674146%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=E6G6lgWa1VnbRF%2Bk2Py925bn2gMb%2Bl1giWppPmH8Nnw%3D&reserved=0).
>> Denny's book is available on Biodiverity Heritage Library:
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fbibliography%2F137104&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C365544b058174a92a8c108dadcdafb71%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638065130334674146%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Bj3FIk%2BA65kuqPF7ofDT5oo79Ydbq%2FK3%2BGJT%2B6umIu4%3D&reserved=0.
>> I spent some time going through other species described by Denny
>> yesterday. The slides are all digitized and photos are publicly
>> available on the NHML homepage, and I think there may be some
>> important clues here, as well as in the original publication.
>>
>> First, the plates are maybe decisive here. The syntype does not have
>> these setae nor does the illustrated specimen. All other specimens of
>> the louse normally living on this host have these setae, including the
>> neotypye erected by Mey and the type series of the new species erected
>> by Najer et al. This is one of the reasons that Mey argues that the
>> syntype should be set aside, and the neotype accepted.
>>
>> Second, Denny stated that he first had only one specimen of Ph.
>> reguli, but then obtained others. He does not use the term "type" for
>> anything as far as I know, but in 1852 the British Museum obtained the
>> types of his collection, and list Ph. reguli there, although they
>> don't state how many specimens they obtained for any species. The
>> subsequent history of other specimens examined by Denny is unknown,
>> but at least in some cases he thanks correspondents for allowing him
>> to retain the specimens for the duration of writing this monograph, so
>> they may have been sent back to various collectors. This is not stated
>> for Ph. reguli.
>>
>> I had a look at other analogous cases in Denny's monograph, in which
>> he stated that he first obtained a single specimen, and subsequently
>> obtained additional specimens. In all cases I could find, the end
>> result is the same: they are listed in the catalogue of what the NHML
>> obtained in 1852, and only one specimen marked "type" is present in
>> that collection today. Moreover, the slides are evidently mounted by
>> the same person, who has a style that no one else seem to use
>> (probably this is Bruce Cummings). In cases where Denny stated that he
>> had many specimens, and never mentioned any subsequent collections,
>> there are many slides mounted and marked in the same way at the NHML
>> today.
>>
>> Thirdly, we know from his Preface that he sent at least some of these
>> plates out to a colleague in Germany, who corrected them, before the
>> monograph was published. I also found an advertisement in the Annals
>> of Natural History from 1838 where he asks for help collecting lice
>> form British birds and mammals.
>>
>> It thus seems conceivable to me, by analogy, that in these cases Denny
>> only had access to a single specimen of these species when he wrote
>> his descriptions and prepared his copperplates. After this was done,
>> he obtained additional specimens (which may or may not be
>> conspecific), but he did not consider these types. As the NHML only
>> obtained the types, and as far as I can tell all types they obtained
>> were slide-mounted, maybe this implies that Denny did not consider
>> these specimens types, and instead sent them back to whoever collected
>> them. This would imply that the syntype is the only type specimen
>> there ever was. I know of no way to establish whether this scenario is
>> correct, but it is at least plausible, which to me suggests that the
>> syntype cannot be dismissed out of hand.
>>
>> As to whether the syntype can be identified -- yes, possibly. From
>> what I can see of the photo of the slide at the NHML homepage, there
>> is nothing to suggest that this specimen could not be identified if
>> someone put some effort in. Females in this genus are often very hard
>> to identify, but not impossible, especially if we can assume that it
>> is one of the other species known from the UK (where it was
>> collected), as there aren't that any species there, and many of the
>> known ones can be excluded immediately.
>>
>> So based on your clarifications, and the closer examination of Denny's
>> book and material, it seems to me that the syntype cannot be dismissed
>> as a non-type without further evidence, and as -- as far as I can tell
>> -- the specimen may be identifiable if examined properly, it cannot be
>> set aside for that reason either, without further evidence. Can I then
>> conclude that, at present, the neotypification is unwarranted, until
>> someone has examined the syntype specimen and established whether it
>> can at all be identified?
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>> Hello Daniel,
>>>
>>> A neotype is to be designated only "when no name-bearing type
>>> specimen
>>> (i.e. holotype, lectotype, syntype or prior neotype) is believed to
>>> be
>>> extant and an author considers that a name-bearing type is necessary
>>> to define the nominal taxon objectively".
>>>
>>> Obviously, different authors may interpret the evidence for a given
>>> case differently. Also, it may be impossible to decide unambiguously
>>> if a given specimen was seen by an author before or after a
>>> description was published. Where such conflicts threaten
>>> nomenclatural
>>> stability, it is relevant to submit an application to the Commission
>>> with a suggested solution.
>>>
>>> From what you have written, my impression is that the single existing
>>> suspected syntype is most likely a syntype -- we can never be sure,
>>> but it seems that the evidence is in favour. [But as mentioned by
>>> Francisco, a firm decision would require seeing the original work and
>>> possibly even consulting additional "published and unpublished
>>> evidence".] However, an existing syntype would mean that the neotype
>>> designation is invalid.
>>>
>>> Is it possible to make taxonomic sense out of the only remaining
>>> syntype, i.e., do you consider this specimen to be recognizable as a
>>> species (whether named or not yet named)? If this specimen is in such
>>> a condition that its taxonomic identity cannot be determined (except
>>> for not being conspecific with the new species established under Set
>>> 1), then it is possible to ask the Commission to set aside the
>>> name-bearing type (i.e., the existing syntype plus all other and
>>> probably lost syntypes) and designate a neotype. This neotype could
>>> then be the same as the one designated under Set 2, which would be in
>>> line with Art. 75.6: Conservation of prevailing usage by a neotype.
>>> If
>>> the Commission endorse the application, this would give the same
>>> result as accepting the conditions of Set 2, but there would no
>>> longer
>>> be any doubts. If the Commission rejects the application, it would
>>> have to provide an alternative solution of how to solve the
>>> nomenclatural instability.
>>>
>>> /Thomas
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: kotatsu at fripost.org <kotatsu at fripost.org>
>>> Sent: 10. december 2022 13:48
>>> To: Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
>>> Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; iczn-list
>>> <iczn-list at afriherp.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Taxacom: Neotypification and common usage
>>>
>>> [You don't often get email from kotatsu at fripost.org. Learn why this
>>> is
>>> important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>>>
>>> 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%2Feur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Flist&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C365544b058174a92a8c108dadcdafb71%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638065130334674146%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ALXr57mHYQT5c21NCvdGxfjLSREcLwz%2BU4vn0HKqQHk%3D&reserved=0
>>>> s.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=05%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7Ce
>>>> 979e01916404cfb5aaa08dadaacc56c%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0
>>>> %7C0%7C638062733691990701%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAi
>>>> LCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sda
>>>> ta=HcsJbuYZxny6kyi7TEhAjs0t32B5ywq5qx2QRIC8jGA%3D&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%2Feur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Ftaxa&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C365544b058174a92a8c108dadcdafb71%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638065130334674146%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QbWXvYeWReXkltOdCIQo1BMGzlT78Rc3BfCCPHakZfw%3D&reserved=0
>>>> com.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7Ce979e019164
>>>> 04cfb5aaa08dadaacc56c%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C638
>>>> 062733691990701%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2
>>>> luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BfpUk
>>>> %2Bz6TReOcTYW4FsLD2w6HZQdVXtzgpG5DzOkZCE%3D&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://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Flist&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C365544b058174a92a8c108dadcdafb71%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638065130334674146%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ALXr57mHYQT5c21NCvdGxfjLSREcLwz%2BU4vn0HKqQHk%3D&reserved=0
>>>> s.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=05%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7Ce
>>>> 979e01916404cfb5aaa08dadaacc56c%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0
>>>> %7C0%7C638062733691990701%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAi
>>>> LCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sda
>>>> ta=HcsJbuYZxny6kyi7TEhAjs0t32B5ywq5qx2QRIC8jGA%3D&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%2Feur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Ftaxa&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C365544b058174a92a8c108dadcdafb71%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638065130334674146%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QbWXvYeWReXkltOdCIQo1BMGzlT78Rc3BfCCPHakZfw%3D&reserved=0
>>>> com.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7Ce979e019164
>>>> 04cfb5aaa08dadaacc56c%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C638
>>>> 062733691990701%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2
>>>> luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BfpUk
>>>> %2Bz6TReOcTYW4FsLD2w6HZQdVXtzgpG5DzOkZCE%3D&reserved=0
>>>>
>>>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration
>>>> for about 35 years, 1987-2022.
>>>
>>> -- 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://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&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C365544b058174a92a8c108dadcdafb71%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638065130334674146%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iVdvU32Bs7%2Fg0P5d58ymRA%2Fci2lBGi2dSDgDf5gm16E%3D&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&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C365544b058174a92a8c108dadcdafb71%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638065130334674146%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iVdvU32Bs7%2Fg0P5d58ymRA%2Fci2lBGi2dSDgDf5gm16E%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration
> for about 35 years, 1987-2022.
--
Dr. Daniel R. Gustafsson, Research Assistant Professor
Institute of Zoology Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Ask me about chewing lice!
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list