[Taxacom] Ambiguous lectotype designation?
fwelter at gwdg.de
Sat Apr 13 04:56:05 CDT 2019
I agree with you. The question is, is the lectotype designation
ambiguous? A simple typographical error, as we may assume here, would
not invalidate a nomenclatural act, given that the rest is consistent.
If it is ambiguous, then I see no option for tolerance and the act in
such a case would not be valid.
Am 13.04.2019 um 02:35 schrieb Stephen Thorpe:
> Not so fast Francisco! If it was just an error in citing details of *a single specimen*, then that would be not a big deal, but if there are *two specimens* referred to as the lectotype, then I would say that it is problematic!
> Cheers, Stephen
> On Saturday, 13 April 2019, 12:03:41 am UTC, Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de> wrote:
> Dear Michael,
> the Code is silent about such errors in lectotype designations, but it
> is usual practice to tolerate minor errors of this kind. I would
> recommend to publish a statement that this should have read 1587 instead
> of 1586, and explain the circumstances. If this is the only error I
> would tolerate it.
> Best wishes
> Francisco Welter-Schultes
> Am 13.04.2019 um 01:35 schrieb Michael Oliver:
>> Eccles & Trewavas (1989)** redescribed the cichlid fish *Haplochromis
>> heterodon* Trewavas, 1935, transferring it to *Otopharynx. *From the
>> several lots of syntypes they designated a lectotype, referring to it in
>> two places. First (p. 157), a specimen drawing is captioned "*Fig. 79*.
>> Otopharynx heterodon *(Trewavas). Lectotype. Male, 96 mm SL; Monkey Bay."*
>> Second (p. 158), under Material examined: "*Lectotype: *BMNH 1935.6.14.
>> *1586*. Male, 96 mm SL; Monkey Bay, coll. Christy. (Fig. 79)."
>> The problem is, the specimen with register number 1586 is NOT the one drawn
>> in Fig. 79. It measures only 86 mm SL. Furthermore, the original drawing
>> for Fig. 79 includes the notation "No. 326" and a specimen in another lot,
>> 1935.6.14.*1587*, has the collector's tag "326" tied to it (and this
>> specimen is the expected 96 mm SL; I have examined both specimens).
>> Thus, I think it is clear that 1587 (the drawn fish) is the intended
>> lectotype, despite the misstated register number under Material examined.
>> Is this lectotype designation ambiguous? Will it be sufficient when
>> redescribing this species (as planned) to explain the confusion and provide
>> the correct register number of 1935.6.14.*1587?*
>> **Eccles, D. H. and E. Trewavas. 1989. Malaŵian Cichlid Fishes. The
>> Classification of Some Haplochromine Genera. Herten: Lake Fish Movies. 335
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
More information about the Taxacom