[Taxacom] holotype designation

Rosenberg,Gary rosenberg.ansp at drexel.edu
Thu Mar 28 10:59:23 CDT 2019


Hi John,



The governing text of the Code is in Article 73.



73.1.1. If an author when establishing a new nominal species-group taxon states in the original publication that one specimen, and only one, is the holotype, or "the type", or uses some equivalent expression, that specimen is the holotype fixed by original designation.



73.1.2. If the nominal species-group taxon is based on a single specimen, either so stated or implied in the original publication, that specimen is the holotype fixed by monotypy (see Recommendation 73F)....



From the information provided, the specimen is the holotype, but one can't judge if it is holotype by monotypy or holotype by original designation, because we don't know the context. The author might have had an introductory section explaining his conventions. Elsewhere in the treatment he might have referred to the specimen as "the type" or mentioned paratypes, cotypes or an allotype, which would make it clear that "type' meant holotype in that particular case. (Referring in the original publication to "type and allotype" for a taxon fulfills the requirement of "equivalent expression" to holotype in Article 73.1.1.)



If none of those avenues let us conclude that the specimen is the holotype by original designation, we are left to parse the phrase you quoted. We don't know what followed "unique". The implication is that the author meant "type, a male, unique specimen" but perhaps the text actually said something like "type, a male, unique in having red spots".  It seems that your example comes from Tindale (1941). In the description of Endoclita albosignata, he said “type, a male, unique l. 18942, in S. Aust. Museum” and in the description of E. chrysoptera he said “type, a male, unique, reared August 3, 1923 from Machilus edulis by J. C. M. Gardner; in British Musem”. The introduction to his paper does not states conventions about type terminology. In descriptions of other species he refers to “type”, “allotype” and “paratype” (e.g., Endoclita gmelina).



These clearly meet the requirements for holotype by monotypy. The question is whether the knowledge that Tindale referred to “type” and “allotype” for other species described in the same paper means that all his uses of “type” in the paper indicate holotype by original designation. I would say no: as soon as we start using evidence across taxa in a paper, we are making inferences. I’ve done a lot of work on type status of material treated by Henry Pilsbry and he was sometimes not consistent with his terminology across species within a paper.



Gary Rosenberg

Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Drexel University



-----Original Message-----

From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of John Grehan

Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 7:16 PM

To: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>

Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>

Subject: Re: [Taxacom] holotype designation



Caution: This message came from outside of Drexel. Do not click links or attachments unless you expected this email.



thanks to everyone for the quick feedback. This is indeed a case where a single specimen was being described for the species - therefore 'unique'.

So I gather that this is pretty good evidence that there is no evidence for any further specimens being involved and that the unique specimen can be referred to as a holotype.



John Grehan



On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 7:09 PM Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>

wrote:



> Relevant are Art. 74.5 and 74.6. For the type series, see Art. 72.4.1.

>

> Just saying "type" alone is not necessarily enough for meeting the

> conditions to qualify for a holotype designation. If there is external

> evidence that the author had more specimens at his or her disposal,

> this type would be a syntype.

> I did not really understand the meaning of "unique" in this context.

> Maybe a little more information could help.

>

> Francisco

>

>

> -----

> Francisco Welter-Schultes

>

> Am 27.03.2019 um 23:46 schrieb John Grehan:

> > I could probably figure this out from the rules of nomenclature, but

> > perhaps someone will know off the cuff as I would like to be sure

> > and

> have

> > the info quickly. If someone in 1958 states "type, a male,

> > unique...…" is that sufficient for the specimen to be referred to as

> > a holotype since it is clear that the type is represented by a single specimen?

> >

> > Thanks. John Grehan

> > _______________________________________________

> > Taxacom Mailing List

> >

> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:

> https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailm

> an.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=02%7C0

> 1%7Crosenberg.ansp%40drexel.edu%7Cdcdd58a433944ac1f16508d6b30a3225%7C3

> 664e6fa47bd45a696708c4f080f8ca6%7C0%7C1%7C636893253705175965&sdata

> =naiH862ZRIcc0yerR%2F09tFzlY%2B94K8stsxIjX8DMl2g%3D&reserved=0

> > 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:

> https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxac

> om.markmail.org&data=02%7C01%7Crosenberg.ansp%40drexel.edu%7Cdcdd5

> 8a433944ac1f16508d6b30a3225%7C3664e6fa47bd45a696708c4f080f8ca6%7C0%7C1

> %7C636893253705175965&sdata=C%2BPvLynguveoRcOMiUExD6L8KDepARHX1PH%

> 2F2QT%2BL1Q%3D&reserved=0

> >

> > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.

> >

> _______________________________________________

> Taxacom Mailing List

>

> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:

> https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailm

> an.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=02%7C0

> 1%7Crosenberg.ansp%40drexel.edu%7Cdcdd58a433944ac1f16508d6b30a3225%7C3

> 664e6fa47bd45a696708c4f080f8ca6%7C0%7C1%7C636893253705175965&sdata

> =naiH862ZRIcc0yerR%2F09tFzlY%2B94K8stsxIjX8DMl2g%3D&reserved=0

> 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:

> https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxac

> om.markmail.org&data=02%7C01%7Crosenberg.ansp%40drexel.edu%7Cdcdd5

> 8a433944ac1f16508d6b30a3225%7C3664e6fa47bd45a696708c4f080f8ca6%7C0%7C1

> %7C636893253705175965&sdata=C%2BPvLynguveoRcOMiUExD6L8KDepARHX1PH%

> 2F2QT%2BL1Q%3D&reserved=0

>

> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.

>

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List



Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=02%7C01%7Crosenberg.ansp%40drexel.edu%7Cdcdd58a433944ac1f16508d6b30a3225%7C3664e6fa47bd45a696708c4f080f8ca6%7C0%7C1%7C636893253705175965&sdata=naiH862ZRIcc0yerR%2F09tFzlY%2B94K8stsxIjX8DMl2g%3D&reserved=0

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: https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org&data=02%7C01%7Crosenberg.ansp%40drexel.edu%7Cdcdd58a433944ac1f16508d6b30a3225%7C3664e6fa47bd45a696708c4f080f8ca6%7C0%7C1%7C636893253705175965&sdata=C%2BPvLynguveoRcOMiUExD6L8KDepARHX1PH%2F2QT%2BL1Q%3D&reserved=0



Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list