dessart / lectotype

Sérvio Túlio Pires Amarante serviopa at USP.BR
Wed Jan 24 18:08:25 CST 2001


One of our colleagues had contacted me on the lectotypes' Article 74.7.3
some time ago, just before this topic have arisen in Taxacom. He has sent a
letter to ICZN, expressing his reasoning in favor of the suppression of this
article. Also, he has invited me to do the same, and I prone to do it so.
However, I think that if more people join us, the ICZN would be more prone
to take care of this matter. So, I am here to propose that the zoo taxcomers
think about it and consider to join us, expressing our opinion to ICZN.

Sérvio Túlio Pires Amarante

serviopa at usp.br

Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo
Caixa Postal 42694-970
04299-970
São Paulo
BRASIL

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Dessart" <dessart at KBINIRSNB.BE>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 9:22 AM
Subject: dessart / lectotype


> Dear Taxacomers,
>
> 1) logically the designation of a lectotype is made when a species is
> described after a syntype-series and I never saw anyone, in my field of
> research, who did not clearly identified the lectotype with his label(s).
"I
> choose as lectotype the specimen .... (labels, numbers?...)" should be
> enough, as lectotypification implies a type series and no holotype, and
the
> aim is always the same and unique: to prevent further, eventual ambiguity.
> That why I'm also for the suppression of the contested text in ICZN.
> 2) if anyone thinks a lectotypification is unvalid, he should
> deontologically contact the lectotypifier and suggest him to improve his
> nomenclatural act; if he does not do that, or if the "guilty"
lectotypifier
> is dead, he will publish another lectotypification text: IS THERE ONE
> TAXONOMIST, making a new, correct lectotypification, WHO WOULD DARE TO
> CHOOSE OTHER SPECIMEN (except for serious systematical reason)?
> 3) when an author makes an obligatory emendation (I say: emendation,
here)),
> he does not become the author of the emended name (thus, not the author of
> the emended genus or species) and the date of the taxon does not change. I
> suppose (I dare to suppose!) that the author making a "perfectly valid"
> improved lectotypification, choosing the same specimen and just adding
some
> words in the nomenclatural act, WILL NOT BE THE AUTHOR of the
> lectotypification..., and the accepted date of the lectotypification will
be
> the date of the first designation.
>
> By the way, does anyone think that the French writing taxonomists will use
> "binom" instead of the century old "binome"?
>
> I don't care that the "specific name" might be call "specific epithet",
like
> in botany. Both expressions are imperfect: many specific "names" are not
> names, but adjectives, and many "epithets" are not adjectives, but
names...
> Then...
>
> Best regards to everybody.
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Dessart,
> Chef honoraire de la Section Insectes & Arachnomorphs,
> Institut royal des Sciences naturelles de Belgique,
> rue Vautier, 29
> B-1000 Bruxelles  Belgique/Belgium
>
> DTel.:+32+(0)2/627.42.97
> Fax: +32+(0)2/627.41.32
> Mail: dessart at kbinirsnb.be
> http://www.kbinirsnb.be




More information about the Taxacom mailing list