[Taxacom] [Fwd: Re: lectotypification?]
mblanco at flmnh.ufl.edu
Sat Aug 2 12:37:00 CDT 2008
Thanks, David, I forgot the Harvard Collectors Database.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] lectotypification?
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 12:48:49 -0400
From: David Boufford <david_boufford at harvard.edu>
To: Mario Blanco <mblanco at flmnh.ufl.edu>
References: <a06240802c4b663a6682a at 22.214.171.124>
<4890BC14.80106 at flmnh.ufl.edu> <005401c8f4a8$b7d2aea0$74f10d0a at gur>
<48948727.2040606 at flmnh.ufl.edu>
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Mario Blanco <mblanco at flmnh.ufl.edu
<mailto:mblanco at flmnh.ufl.edu>> wrote:
Well, Ms. Rodda asked for advice on the situation she has with the
species she is working with. She is not asking anyone to do the work for
her. It seems that she has traced all duplicates of the type collection
(and if not, useful information can be found for most historically
important plant collectors in either Taxonomic Literature 2 or in the
"Index Herbariorum-Collectors" series published by Regnum Vegetabile;
the latter is different from the regular Index Herbariorum and is not
available online - yet).
Please try the pages at
combine information on botanists from Index Herbariorum-Collectors, from
TL-2 and sometimes from obituaries.
Her question was whether it is necessary to
designate a lectotype, and this depends on the situation as we already
have discussed earlier in this thread.
One more possibility has to be considered with pre-20th century
collectors (and some early 20th century ones). Some of them (e.g.,
Charles Wright) gave the same number to particular species,
independently of when and where they were collected. In this case,
different specimens with the same number do not belong to a single
gathering and thus are not duplicates, and they cannot be treated as
isotypes, lectotypes, etc. (unless they have the same date and/or
locality data). This was a not uncommon practice back when many
collectors made a living by selling sets of their collections to mostly
gurcharan Singh(singhg) wrote:
> 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
> 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
> Gurcharan Singh
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mario Blanco"
<mblanco at flmnh.ufl.edu <mailto:mblanco at flmnh.ufl.edu>>
> Cc: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <mailto: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
> 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
>>> I have
>>> been dealing with the Taxonomic placement of some Hoya species
>>> 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 the
>>> 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
>>> regards, Michele Rodda
>>> Taxacom mailing list
>>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
David E. Boufford
Harvard University Herbaria
22 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138-2020
Tel 1 617-495-0794
Fax 1 617-495-9484
More information about the Taxacom