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

Alina Freire-Fierro freirefierro at acnatsci.org
Mon Jun 30 09:30:09 CDT 2008

Mr. Koibeatu,

I am sorry you had to spend your time and energy reading my post. I sent it
to the group because I wanted to know what other more experienced botanical
taxonomists recommended. In the future, I might request help to my
nomenclatural questions to colleagues out of the group.

Dear all,

Many thanks for the suggestions/recommendations about my question. Although
I have published several taxonomic works, I wanted to know what other
colleagues thought about this situation. I hope your suggestions/information
will be useful to other colleagues as well.

I have contacted the institutions that according to TL-2 have duplicates of
Nuttall specimens. Depending on the information we gather from them we might
make the lectotypfications or publish a small note regarding the holotypes
(so the work that Alicia and I have been doing is not repeated again in the

Many thanks again and best wishes,


Alina Freire-Fierro
Collection Manager
PH Herbarium, Botany Department
Academy of Natural Sciences
Philadelphia, PA 19103-1151
freirefierro at ansp.org
Tel: 1-215-299-1157; Fax: 1-215-299-1028

> From: Curtis Clark <jcclark-lists at earthlink.net>
> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:30:34 -0700
> To: Alina Freire-Fierro <freirefierro at acnatsci.org>
> Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, Alicia Landale
> <alicia.landale at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nuttall's species at PH, holotypes vs. lectotypes?
> 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

More information about the Taxacom mailing list