ICBN Lectotypes

Robin Leech releech at TELUSPLANET.NET
Thu Aug 1 08:41:34 CDT 2002


Perhaps it should be called a "selectotype"?
Robin Leech
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dipteryx" <dipteryx at FREELER.NL>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 8:36 AM
Subject: ICBN Lectotypes


> 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
> isosyntype".
>
> 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>
> To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 1:38 PM
> Subject: ICBN Lectotypes
>
>
> Paul
>
> 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
> herbaria).
>
> 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?
>
> Best,
> Paul van Rijckevorsel
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Torbj÷rn Tyler <Torbjorn.Tyler at SYSBOT.LU.SE>
> To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
> 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