[Taxacom] Taxonomy in Europe in the 21st century

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

From: "Mary Barkworth" <Mary at biology.usu.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 2:09 PM

What would be the implications of "deprecation"?  The production of
articles supporting deprecation of individual names? Would this require
as as much, or almost as much, effort as finding a lectotype and/or
establishing a neotype? There are better things to do with one's time.

For some names, a change in the Code could lead to a relatively simple
solution. I am thinking of non-controversial names that are in common
use but for which it is known that the type no longer exists. Despite
this, no neotype has been established. In my case it is simply because
it would take time, effort, and money but accomplish nothing very
valuable. The difficulty is in locating a specimen the author might have
seen, perhaps. The author lived in Europe, long ago; I live in the US,
now. Lectotypification is possible - but it really will not change
things.   In such cases, it would be useful to be able to select a
neotype in an institution near or in the species' current distribution
[more useful than having an old fragmentary specimen on a different
continent] that fits the non-controversial use of the name and just move
on. No, I have never proposed an amendment to the Code in this respect.
Of course, the kind of names I describe are "in common use" so would not
be on the deprecated list.
Mary
________________________________

Basically the Code does provide for this:
* if no original material exists, a neotype can be designated
* if original material does exist, but it is ambiguous, an epitype can be 
designated
* it is always possible to propose conservation with a different type

However, all these possibilities do require evaluating the original 
material. That requirement is not very likely to be abandoned, as it would 
open the door to chaos.

Paul