Paul van Rijckevorsel
dipteryx at freeler.nl
Thu Jul 31 00:41:42 CDT 2008
Yes, Art 9.1 defines the holotype as "the one specimen or illustration
used by the author", so that it is important to try and establish what
the author actually did use. This will require reading up on that. Rec.
9A.4 offers some guidance.
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?
>>> 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