[Taxacom] lectotypification?

Wilson Karen Karen.Wilson at rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au
Sat Aug 2 20:12:44 CDT 2008


 On the matter of how collectors numbered specimens, there's a nice explanation of the different ways it was being done in the 19th century in a Presidential Address ot the Linnean Society of London by the celebrated British botanist C.B. Clarke - in Proc. Linnean Soc. 1895-96, pp. 19-22. 
It's worth reading. He gives various examples of who was using which system, and makes it clear that he saw no virtue in the species-numbering system. 

Karen Wilson

**************************************** 
Karen L. Wilson 
Acting Manager Plant Diversity Section 
National Herbarium of NSW 
Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney 
Mrs Macquaries Road 
SYDNEY NSW 2000, AUSTRALIA 

Phone: +61 2 9231 8137 
Website: www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au
 
The Botanic Gardens Trust is part of the Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW).


-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Mario Blanco
Sent: Sunday, 3 August 2008 2:11 AM
To: gurcharan Singh(singhg)
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] lectotypification?

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). 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 European herbaria.

MB

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 
> discussion.
> 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.
>
> Gurcharan Singh
> ----- 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 
>>> protologue cites a field number, but not the herbarium where the 
>>> type had been deposited.
>>> 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 lectotype?
>>>
>>> Kind
>>> regards, Michele Rodda
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Taxacom mailing list
>>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>

_______________________________________________
Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This email is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. 
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then delete it immediately.
Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly 
and with authority states them to be the views of the Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW).





More information about the Taxacom mailing list