Botanical Code Article 71

[John McNeill]

Although what I said was true, I was probably a bit too cavalier in
dismissing Richard Jensen's question:

> If an epitype is appropriate when the holotype is unidentfiable for
> "any reason," what becomes of lectotype?

The full information on the use of an epitype is in Art. 9.7 of the
Tokyo Code.  This addresses any case in which original material, whether
the holotype, a lectotype, or other eligible type material, cannot be
critically identified.  The full wording is:

"9.7. An epitype is a specimen or illustration selected to serve as an
interpretive type when the holotype, lectotype or previously selected
neotype, or all original material associated with a validly published
name, is demonstrably ambiguous and cannot be critically identified for
purposes of the precise application of the name of a taxon.  When an
epitype is designated, the holotype, lectotype or neotype that the
epitype supports must be explicitly stated."

If, in addition to an unidentifiable holotype, there is other original
material that is identifiable, then the epitype could be selected from
this material - but it need not be.

John McNeill

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John McNeill, Director, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen's Park,
      Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2C6, Canada.
      Tel.: 416-586-5639      Fax: 416-586-8044
      e-mail: johnm at rom.on.ca  (or:  john at rom.on.ca)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ÿÿ    Re: Botanical Code Article 71                                           32