Paratypes, lectotypes, etc. - An Answer to TAXACOM Digest

Joseph H. Kirkbride, Jr. jkirkbri at ASRR.ARSUSDA.GOV
Wed Jan 3 11:32:20 CST 1996

Jim Reval did not mention Art. 8.3 of the ICBN:
  ... if such a name is without a type specimen, the type may be an
Under the current ICBN (tokyo) the sugar cane lectotypification might not
be effective if there was a syntype which is what I would infer from your
explaination.  Since there was a syntype, presumably the one that you did
not choose as lectotype, an illustration can NOT be choosen as lectotype;
one of the extant syntypes MUST be choosen as lectotype.

For some reason everyone is ignoring Art. 8.3 of the ICBN.  Like a lot of
things in the ICBN, Art. 8.3 was probably put in to reinforce the idea
that an illustration can be used as a type.  But, the current English
wording has the effect of eliminating use of an illustration if a
specimen exists.

Joseph H. Kirkbride, Jr.
USDA, Agricultural Research Service
Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory
Room 304, Building 011A, BARC-West
Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2350 USA
Voice telephone: 301-504-9447
FAX: 301-504-5810
Internet: jkirkbri at

More information about the Taxacom mailing list