two lectotypes question
TPape at SNM.KU.DK
Thu Jun 2 23:25:08 CDT 2005
> I would view both of these as potential syntypes and no more.
The relevant Article to consider is 74, where we find:
"74.5 Lectotype designations before 2000. In a lectotype designation made before 2000, either the term "lectotype", or an exact translation or equivalent expression (e.g. "the type"), must have been used or the author must have unambiguously selected a particular syntype to act as the unique name-bearing type of the taxon."
"74.6. Fixation of lectotype by inference of "holotype" or "the type" before 2000. When it has been accepted that a nominal species-group taxon was based on a single specimen and the original description neither implies nor requires that there were syntypes, and if it is considered subsequently that the original description was based on more than one specimen, the first author to have published before 2000 the assumption that the species-group taxon was based upon a single type specimen is deemed to have designated that specimen as the lectotype."
It seems to me that allowing for the Schouteden specimen as a syntype is tied to accepting this as the lectotype. However, the case has to be evaluated carefully from the evidence (description, wording, etc.) in the original publication. More information is needed, particularly whether or not the original description for any reason excludes the inclusion of both specimens in a syntypic series. How exactly does the Schouteden specimen disagree with the original description?
The Natural History Museum of Denmark
More information about the Taxacom