ICBN Lectotypes - follow-up

Dipteryx dipteryx at FREELER.NL
Thu Aug 1 19:10:41 CDT 2002

In view of the fact that Art 9.10 was rewritten after the StLouis Congress I
looked up the Report of the Nomenclature section in Englera 20 (2000)

This very issue was extensively discussed. There was a proposal (prop D) to
allow the leeway for an illustration to be substituted instead of a
collection. This would be especially important for 18th century names, when
not much is available in the way of collections. For 19th and 20th century
names collections are preferrable as types

In their discussion on proposals to alter this Art (then Art 9.9) the
Section clearly states that botanical tradition is that a lectotype must be
an isotype, or when this does not exist, must be a syntype, or when this
does not exist, must be an isosyntype.

When an author does not follow this prescribed sequence as laid down in
(then Art 9.9 now Art 9.10) his lectotypification can (must ?) be overturned
by a proper lectotypification. Greuter says so explicitly on page 80. It
would appear that Art 9.17 (then 9.13) only counts if Art 9.10 (now, then
Art 9.9) has been followed.

This would mean, in the case submitted that the 'syntypes' in the herbaria
of the original authors can/must be appointed as new lectotypes supplacing
the 'isosyntypes' in Vienna.

+ + +

However if I were not aware of this and had only the Code to hand I
certainly could not explain this. Both Art 9.10 (now, then Art 9.9) "must be
chosen" and Art 9.17 (now, then Art 9.13) "must be followed" would seem
straightforward, incontrovertable and irreconcilable.

Maybe an issue for the Vienna Congress?

How about a proposal to change Art 9.17 to: "The author who first designates
a lectotype or a neotype must be followed, provided this designation was
done in accordance to Art 9.10 and 9.11, but that choice is superseeded if
... "

This would make sure that this botanical tradition is clearly reflected in
the Code.

It would seem this is the point where a veteran Code Warrior puts in a wise

Paul van Rijckevorsel

----- Original Message -----
From: Dipteryx <dipteryx at FREELER.NL>
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 4:36 PM
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
> 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
> isosyntype".
> 2) If several specimens were cited in the original publication
> the material seen by the author is less well protected than if only a
> specimen was cited ('holotype') when the material seen by the author
> 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
> Paul
> They did not refer to the herbaria in which their cited types (holotypes
> syntypes) were housed .... just listed the specimen(s). My comment should
> perhaps have been in brackets  .... (most of which are present in their
> 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,
> 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>
> 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
> but since there are many cases when it is impossible to know exactly which
> duplicates (isosyntypes) an author has really seen, or when the
> that were kept by the author in his own herbarium are known or suspected
> 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
> this choice has to be followed as long as you cannot prove that the
> lectotypes differ taxonomically from the material in the describing
> own herbarium. You may critisize the lectotypifying author, and if the
> material of the describing authors own herbarium was known and available
> him I would like to say that he made a bad choise, but you will certainly
> 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
> >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
> and the recommendations up until Sydney Code 1983. But then the Berlin
> 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
> if not seen by the author .......  isosyntypes of the name irrespective of
> whether such specimens were seen by ... the author of the name".  This
> to go totally against the wording of Recommendation 9A3 which is
> 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
> of the code which is supposed to try to respect the original publication
> 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
> for corrupted or virus-infected messages.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list