[Taxacom] Paralectotype question

Neal Evenhuis neale at bishopmuseum.org
Thu Apr 20 18:06:02 CDT 2017

There is this caveat with the Loew Diptera collection at MCZ to always
take into account …

… from Knutson, L., R. E. Orth, T. W. Fisher & W. L. Murphy. 1986. Catalog
of Sciomyzidae (Diptera) of America North of Mexico. Entomography 4: 1‑53:

"Museum of Comparative Zoology. According to C.W. Sabrosky (in litt., 4
Oct., 1977 to L. Knutson), Nathan Banks told him during a visit to the
Museum of Comparative Zoology in 1935, that the Loew "types" were labeled
by Samuel Henshaw and that Henshaw did not necessar­ily get the type
labels on the correct specimens. Sabrosky further noted, "Sometimes the
red type label was put on a specimen not mentioned in the original
description. In any case, the Henshaw 'designations' were never published
and have no standing as such."
For many species in the Loew collection, there is more than one specimen
labeled "type." Specimens from the collection bear small white labels
reading "Loew Coll." Also, many specimens labeled "type" bear a small
white label with the species name followed by an "M" (equals Mihi) in
Loew's handwriting. However, for some species, there are specimens labeled
"Loew Coll." but not labeled with red type labels. Also, in some cases the
specimens not bearing a type label are in better condition than specimens
labeled as such, or they are males and the so-called types are females.”

Thus, what is labeled s not guaranteed as a syntype. Best to be
conservatively cautious when designating lectotypes from the Loew material
in MCZ.


On Stardate 4/20/17, 11:11 AM, "Taxacom on behalf of Stephen Thorpe"
<taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu on behalf of
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

>I am surprised that you would consider this issue without having seen the
>OD [Original Description]! Here it is:
>It doesn't help though. Anyway, you need to consider whether the labels
>are original Loew labels or added subsequently by someone else.
>If it was me, I would just state (assuming you have a publication in
>preparation) that the 4th specimen may also be part of the type series
>and therefore now a paralectotype. I don't see the need to make a
>definite decision based on less than conclusive evidence, do you?
>On Fri, 21/4/17, Robert Louis Zuparko <rz at berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Paralectotype question
> To: "Francisco Welter-Schultes" <fwelter at gwdg.de>
> Cc: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
>taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Received: Friday, 21 April, 2017, 8:52 AM
> 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.
> -Bob
> Robert Zuparko
> Essig Museum of Entomology
> 1101 Valley Life Sciences Building,
> #4780
> University of California
> Berkeley, CA 94720-3112
> (510) 643-0804
>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.

This message is only intended for the addressee named above.  Its contents may be privileged or otherwise protected.  Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited.  If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call.  Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list