singhg at satyam.net.in
Sat Aug 2 09:04:44 CDT 2008
To my mind some things have to be clarified before the question by Michele
Rodda can be answered.
1. It would be appropriate if we know the names of the species under
2. If we have access to the original publication of the author, there is
every possibility that we know where the specimens are deposited and whether
or not type was designated..
3. If Mr Rodda does not know the herbarium where specimens are deposited,
how does he know that more than one specimens with the same number exist.
4. Assuming that we have more than one specimens with same collection
number, obviously they are from the same place, collected on the same date
and better known as isotypes, and if holotype is not traceable, or does not
exist, a lectotype needs to be selected from amongst these isotypes.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Blanco" <mblanco at flmnh.ufl.edu>
Cc: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] lectotypification?
But not if it there is a single specimen in the herbarium where the
author was known to be based, in which case it is safe to treat that
specimen as the holotype (no need for lectotypification). At least this
is my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong.
Torbjörn Tyler wrote:
> I suppose the simpliest possible answer to that question is: YES!
> (If the duplicates were all known to have been deposited in a single
> herbarium, then all duplicates with the same field number may have been
> treated as a single specimen in the sense of ICBN, but apparently you do
> not know if this is the case here (you even don't know in what herbarium
> they are?) and then lectotypification is the only possibility.)
> / Torbjörn Tyler
>> Dear all,
>> I am a PhD student from the University of Torino, Italy. This is my
>> first message. I hope my question will be appropriate for this group.
>> I have
>> been dealing with the Taxonomic placement of some Hoya species whose
>> cites a field number, but not the herbarium where the type had been
>> These names, having been published between 1906 and 1913 are valid. As
>> field number cited in the protologue is not written on one specimen only
>> but on
>> all the duplicates as well, is there the need to designate a lectotype?
>> regards, Michele Rodda
>> Taxacom mailing list
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
More information about the Taxacom