[Taxacom] Nuttall's species at PH, holotypes vs. lectotypes?

[Curtis Clark]

On 2008-06-27 14:02, Alina Freire-Fierro wrote:
>>From what I understand from Art. 9, Note 1; and Art. 9A.4. of the Code
> --http://www.ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm-- (see at end of message) there is no
> need to designate a lectotype if we are completely sure that the specimen in
> question is the holotype?

This is correct.

> We have one specimen of Polygala that was clearly annotated as a new species
> by Nuttall, and that, according to Ewan's introduction to Nuttall's 1811
> Gen. N. Amer. Pl. 2, it was collected by Nuttall in Missouri in 1811. Also,
> in the protologue, Nuttall only mentions "Missouri" as the locality.
> So, since it is very likely that there are no Nuttall duplicates of his
> early collections in other herbaria, shall we safely assume that this
> specimen is the holotype?

Although there is always a chance that you are wrong, taxonomists make 
judgments like these all the time.

> And if it is the holotype, can we only put a "Holotype" label in the
> specimen and publish a note about it? Do you know any examples of this
> procedure? (From what I know, lectotypification is the common practice).

Labeling the specimen would depend on the policies of PH. If the 
specimen had been in the general collection, designating it a holotype 
might result in its physical transfer to a separate type collection.

It's not appropriate to publish discovery of a holotype (lectotypes are 
designated, but holotypes are discovered) unless the fact that it was 
missing had already been noted in the literature, or if its discovery 
had bearing on a nomenclatural or taxonomic problem.

-- 
Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Director, I&IT Web Development                   +1 909 979 6371
University Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona