need for neotype

Robin Leech robinl at NAIT.AB.CA
Tue Dec 31 10:11:23 CST 1996

Hi John,

I think that Article 9.9 covers your problem.  "If no holotype was
indicted by the author of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon, or
when the holotype has been lost or destroyed ... a neotype ... may be
designated."  Refer also to Articles 9.6 and 9.11.

Robin Leech

On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, John Nelson wrote:

> 31 Dec 0855h
> Friends:
>     I have a situation for which I welcome your thoughts. Here goes:
>     "Author 1" provides a name and description in French and in
> English (pre-1935) for a common, rather widely distributed, weedy
> plant. The description is adequate, but not exhaustive. There are no
> specimens indicated. Author 1 was known to have a personal herbarium,
> but this plant has never been found within any of his surviving
> specimens. For convenience, we can call this plant "Name 1".
>     "Author 2" comes along later and provides a name ("Name 2") and
> description for the SAME plant, apparently unaware of Author 1's
> work. A proper description is provided, and clear reference is
> made to an existing specimen which serves as the holotype.
>     Both names are thrown around in modern literature, within guides,
> manuals, etc. This is a reasonably important agricultural weed. It
> is easily recognized, and unlikely to be confused with other taxa
> in the genus wiythin its range.
>     Should we maintain Name 1 (because it has priority) and designate
> a neotype? Or should Name 1 be treated as a synonym of Name 2?
>     Happy New Year---   John Nelson
> John B. Nelson
> Curator of the Herbarium (USCH)
> Department of Biological Sciences
> University of South Carolina
> Columbia SC 29208
> nelson at
> 803-777-8196 phone
> 803-777-4002 fax

More information about the Taxacom mailing list