[Taxacom] Paralectotype question

Robert Louis Zuparko rz at berkeley.edu
Thu Apr 20 15:52:08 CDT 2017

To clarify: The species was described by Loew in 1859, but I have not seen
the OD. A series of (at least) 4 specimens were in the MCZ, all sharing the
same two labels: one saying "Loew coll." and the other a red label reading
"TYPE 13228". Therefore I think it is safe to say they are all part of the
same syntype series (granted this is an assumption, but I think it is a
safe one). The 4th specimen was later removed. Afterwards, Orth made his
lectotype designation of the remaining 3 specimens.

Robert Zuparko
Essig Museum of Entomology
1101 Valley Life Sciences Building, #4780
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-3112
(510) 643-0804

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>

> 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.
> -----
> Francisco
> 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
>> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years, 1987-2017.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list