mblanco at flmnh.ufl.edu
Wed Jul 30 15:32:33 CDT 2008
In case there are several specimens deposited in the author's base
herbarium, then lectotypification to narrow it down to a single specimen
is optional (and desirable). The two-step process referred to in Art.
9.15 can be also achieved in a single lectotypification event. Article
9.15 from the ICBN reads:
9.15. A designation of a lectotype or neotype that later is found to
refer to a single gathering but to more than one specimen must
nevertheless be accepted (subject to Art. 9.17), but may be further
narrowed to a single one of these specimens by way of a subsequent
lectotypification or neotypification.
Ex. 8. /Erigeron plantagineus/ Greene (1898) was described from material
collected by R. M. Austin in California. Cronquist (in Brittonia 6: 173.
1947) wrote "Type: /Austin s.n./, Modoc County, California (ND)",
thereby designating the Austin material in ND as the [first-step]
lectotype. Strother & Ferlatte (in Madron'o 35: 85. 1988), noting that
there were two specimens of this gathering at ND, designated one of them
(ND-G No. 057228) as the [second-step] lectotype. In subsequent
references, both lectotypification steps may be cited in sequence.
Mario A. Blanco
Department of Botany
University of Florida
214 Bartram Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-8526
Mario Blanco wrote:
> 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
More information about the Taxacom