[Taxacom] Paralectotype question

Francisco Welter-Schultes fwelter at gwdg.de
Thu Apr 20 15:35:27 CDT 2017

Paralectotypes are not necessary at all. The Code could equally remove 
that status, it has no meaning. Paralectotypes can be selected as 
neotypes if the lectotype is lost, but any other specimen could also 
serve as a neotype.
The term might be useful for the labelling in collections. However this 
is just to replace the term "syntype" after a lectotype designation.
Your objections apply to syntypes. If you provide evidence that a 
particular specimen initially regarded or labelled as a syntype was not 
seen by the author of the description, then this specimen is not a syntype.


Am 20.04.2017 um 22:18 schrieb Stephen Thorpe:
> Francisco said "Paralectotyes are automatically those syntypes which were not designated as lectotype (Art. 74.1.3)"
> Yes, but in practice, there may be less than conclusive evidence that a particular specimen is a syntype. Even if it is from the same collecting event as all the other syntypes, the collector may have, for example, held one back (just in case of loss in transit) but sent the others to the author for description (if collector and author aren't the same person). At the end of the day, it comes to "so what?" Is it important to have an extra paralectotype for some reason? In most cases probably not, so time would be better spent moving on ...
> Stephen
> --------------------------------------------
> On Fri, 21/4/17, Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de> wrote:
>  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Paralectotype question
>  To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>  Received: Friday, 21 April, 2017, 7:21 AM
>  I agree entirely with Adam.
>  During the act of lectotype designation it
>  is not required that the author who designates
>  the lectotype saw or even
>  knew all the
>  other syntypes. Paralectotyes are automatically those
>  syntypes which were not designated as lectotype
>  (Art. 74.1.3).
>  Francisco

More information about the Taxacom mailing list