what becomes of "kleptotypes" if the holotype is destroyed?

Priscilla Muriel bioprisc at BIOLOGY.AU.DK
Sun Nov 9 15:14:01 CST 2003

You could check both articles 8.3 (example 5) and article 9.17 of the St.
Louis code of botanical nomenclature:
Any part subtracted from a type collection (a kleptotype), posterior to its
designation as type and not kept together with the specimen to which it used
to belong, becomes a real duplicate of this collection if it is properly
labelled (the origin, collection data must be properly reported in such
duplicate). Therefore, a piece subtracted from a holotype is actually an
isotype according to the article 8.3.
I suggest also article 9.17 because it deals with the rediscovery of
original material, in case you might want to superseed a posteriorly
designated neotype. I must say, I suggest this in case you are dealing with
plant collections, I am not sure how you should proceed in case you are
talking about animals, but I can imagine something similar must be stated in
the zoological code.


Priscilla Muriel M.
Dept. of Systematic Botany, University of Aarhus,
Herbarium, Bygn. 137, Universitetsparken
8000 Ã…rhus C, Denmark
Phone: (+ 45)  89 42 47 10  (Work)  /  (+ 45)  28 77 50 37  (private)
Fax:   ( +45)  86 13 93 26
e-mail: bioprisc at biology.au.dk
> From: Jason Mate <jfmate at HOTMAIL.COM>
> Reply-To: Jason Mate <jfmate at HOTMAIL.COM>
> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 12:45:32 +0100
> Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] what becomes of "kleptotypes" if the holotype is
> destroyed?

> As long as the material is usable for identification then it is the defacto
> holotype (since it was a fragment of the original hootype). Otherwise the
> holotype is lost and another one needs to be found/ designated. I don't see
> much confusion in this other than determining if the remaining material has
> any use or not. Unfortunately this situation happens all too often,
> frequently in circumstances similar to the example provided by Ms Bankworth,
> so this question is of general interest.
> Cheers
> Jason
>> From: Mary Barkworth <Mary at BIOLOGY.USU.EDU>
>> Reply-To: Mary Barkworth <Mary at BIOLOGY.USU.EDU>
>> To: Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] what becomes of "kleptotypes" if the holotype is
>>              destroyed?
>> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 17:26:50 -0700
>> Personally I hate to think of a fragment becoming more that a kleptotype
>> but I suppose it may indeed be the holotype.  If an insect ate all but a
>> small fragment of a holotype the bit of specimen that remains would
>> still presumably be considered the holotype. The most desirable
>> situation would be for it to be possible to locate a more adequate
>> specimen, possibly a duplicate of the holotype, in another institution.
>> The Code, as I recall has recommendations for selecting neotypes. Would
>> designation of a neotype in the circumstances Thomas outlines be
>> permitted under the Code?
>> For me it is a hypothetical question, at least for now.
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

More information about the Taxacom mailing list