[Taxacom] Paralectotype question
l.raty at skynet.be
Thu Apr 20 17:47:41 CDT 2017
- Löw's OD: http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/31624933
- Orth's lectotype designation: http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/16264767
The OD doesn't make it clear how many type specimens existed--but both
sexes are described, thus certainly more than one. The three specimens
seen by Orth were one male and two females; he made the male the lectotype.
On 04/20/2017 10:52 PM, Robert Louis Zuparko wrote:
> 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
>> 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 ...
>>> 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).
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years, 1987-2017.
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> 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