[Taxacom] ICBN question

Frederick W. Schueler bckcdb at istar.ca
Thu Jul 19 12:00:27 CDT 2007

John McNeill wrote:
> Re the intended lectotypification paper described by Torbjörn Tyler <Torbjorn.Tyler at sysbot.lu.se> (Wednesday - July 18, 2007 7:21 AM) 

> But I believe that the prime reason for tightening up the requirement was to avoid unintentional and hence often ill-considered typifications.  Art. 9.8 of the ICBN provides that “the use of a term .. denoting a type, in a sense other than that in which it is so defined, is treated as an error to be corrected”, so when someone cites as “Type” what they believe to be the pre-existing type, perhaps even the holotype, when it is not, then they are held to have designated a lectotype if the element cited is part of the original material or a neotype if it is not.

> My experience is that the benefits far outweigh any disadvantages, or which this is the first dramatic one of which I have heard.

* it would seem to me that, in this case, the interesting question is 
whether the problem, which resulted from "editorial" changes the author 
didn't have the opportunity to review, could be remedied by the 
publication of an "errata" notice.

            Bishops Mills Natural History Centre
            Frederick W. Schueler & Aleta Karstad
       RR#2 Bishops Mills, Ontario, Canada K0G 1T0
    on the Smiths Falls Limestone Plain 44* 52'N 75* 42'W
      (613)258-3107 <bckcdb at istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca
subscribe to the Eastern Ontario Natural History list-serve at

More information about the Taxacom mailing list