ICBN Lectotypes

Dipteryx dipteryx at FREELER.NL
Thu Aug 1 16:36:26 CDT 2002

Thank you. I guess I am with Torbjörn. Once a lectotype has been chosen it
would seem mandatory to follow this selection, Art 19.7. [not Art 9.13 as
the index states, a remnant of the 1994 Code].

The ICBN would indeed seem to be somewhat inconsistent here:
1) Art 9.10 (rewritten for the 2000 Code) states in its first line that "In
lectotype designation, an isotype must be chosen if such exists, or
otherwise a syntype if such exists." This would seem to demand that the
material used by the authors is chosen for a lectotype over any duplicate.
Only in its second line Art 9.10 introduces isosyntypes without explicitly
specifying its relationship (precedence) to syntypes, although it is
suggestive that the options are listed in the order "no isotype, syntype or

2) If several specimens were cited in the original publication ('syntypes')
the material seen by the author is less well protected than if only a single
specimen was cited ('holotype') when the material seen by the author enjoys
protection by Rec 9A.4 and Art 9.1

Best, Paul van Rijckevorsel

----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Oliver <Oliveregh at NBICT.NBI.AC.ZA>
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 1:38 PM
Subject: ICBN Lectotypes


They did not refer to the herbaria in which their cited types (holotypes or
syntypes) were housed .... just listed the specimen(s). My comment should
perhaps have been in brackets  .... (most of which are present in their own

Ted Oliver

Date:    Wed, 31 Jul 2002 21:13:26 +0200
From:    Dipteryx <dipteryx at FREELER.NL>
Subject: ICBN - Lectotypification

I am a little confused by:

"In many cases they cited syntypes which were in their own herbaria, either
their own collections or duplicates given to them by other collectors. "

This suggests that the 1905 authors were in some way active in assigning
types or using types of existing taxa?

Paul van Rijckevorsel

----- Original Message -----
From: Torbj÷rn Tyler <Torbjorn.Tyler at SYSBOT.LU.SE>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: ICBN - Lectotypification

As far as I understand the Code, material that can be shown to have been
used by the describing author should be PREFERRED when selecting lectotypes,
but since there are many cases when it is impossible to know exactly which
duplicates (isosyntypes) an author has really seen, or when the isosyntypes
that were kept by the author in his own herbarium are known or suspected to
be lost, the Code gives us the POSSIBILITY to choose among all isosyntypes
when selecting lectotypes.

However, in your particular case, lectotypes have allready been selected and
this choice has to be followed as long as you cannot prove that the
lectotypes differ taxonomically from the material in the describing author's
own herbarium. You may critisize the lectotypifying author, and if the
material of the describing authors own herbarium was known and available for
him I would like to say that he made a bad choise, but you will certainly do
that yourself some day...

Have I got it wrong?

Torbj÷rn Tyler

At 14.37 +0200 on 2002-07-30, Ted Oliver wrote:

> I was brought up with the understanding that lectotypes had to be selected
>from among the original material cited in the protologue, i.e. seen and
used by the author - - perfectly acceptable.  But not so now!
> I work on a large genus of plants in which 100 species were described in
Flora capensis (1905) by two amateur workers in Cape Town. In many cases
they cited syntypes which were in their own herbaria, either their own
collections or duplicates given to them by other collectors. In the last
full revision of the genus in 1965, Dulfer of Vienna tackled the syntypes
and selected duplicates of these 'other collectors' which were given by
those collectors themselves or European herbaria to Vienna, as lectotypes,
i.e. material never consulted by the authors in Cape Town.
> I had hoped to change this selection to the authors' own herbarium
material using the 'Guide to determination of types' at the ends of the code
and the recommendations up until Sydney Code 1983. But then the Berlin Code
1988 left this guide out and seemed to rely solely on the Recommendation
9A3-"any indication of intent by the author should be given preference  ....
manuscript notes, annotations on herb sheets ...."
> But then came the shock of the St Louis Code 2000 in which a special new
note is appended to explain what the drafters really thought original
material, from which to make selections, actually is  "those specimens even
if not seen by the author .......  isosyntypes of the name irrespective of
whether such specimens were seen by ... the author of the name".  This seems
to go totally against the wording of Recommendation 9A3 which is fortunately
still retained.
> Well, well, this seems as though the poor authors have been totally
overlooked. This is to me a gross injustice to authors and defeats the rest
of the code which is supposed to try to respect the original publication and
typification of names.
> So should I ignore the note and follow the Recommendation!
> As my children would so aptly say  .....  the St Louis Code sucks!
> Cheers
> Ted Oliver
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. E.G.H. Oliver
> Compton Herbarium  (NBG)
> Kirstenbosch Research Centre
> National Botanical Institute
> 7735  CAPE TOWN
> e-mail:  oliveregh at nbict.nbi.ac.za
> Tel.  021 799 8724
> http://www.nbi.ac.za/research/comptonherbarium.htm
> The NBI accepts no liability for unauthorized use of its e-mail facility
nor for corrupted or virus-infected messages.

The NBI accepts no liability for unauthorized use of its e-mail facility nor
for corrupted or virus-infected messages.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list