Holotype fragment (botany)

Fri Jan 13 21:47:49 CST 2006

  ralf becker <r.h.becker at READING.AC.UK> wrote:
  But you raised a good point with your tree and I like to get more background
info, why the code does not allow multiple gathering from the same
individual.  Well, this may be only a theoretical reason, but what of chimaera, grafts, or even somatic mutations where a branch of a tree may be genetically distinct? This may be nit-picking, but in fact the code as it is, anticipates such things to an extent. Even mistaken identity on returning the the "same" tree.

  But even so this "stricter" code is not infallible – what of flower-only (semi-)parasites, such as Pilosteles or Tapinanthus that might be described in ignorance of their nature, a single gathering consisting of flowers and leaves on a single branch? Presumably a later worker would select a lectotype?

  Surely the phrase a "type tree" can be used legitimately like a "type locality", useful information but not implying that the tree is the type specimen.

Sean Edwards, Vine Cottage, The Street, Thursley, Surrey GU8 6QF, UK
sean.r.edwards at btinternet.com
tel: 01252-702-890 cell: 07768-706-295

More information about the Taxacom mailing list