TAXACOM Digest - 26 Dec 1995 to 27 Dec 1995

[Joe Laferriere]

MY COMMENTS/QUESTIONS ARE IN CAPITALS BELOW, TO SEE IF I HAVE THIS
STRAIGHT ---  JOE LAFERRIERE
>
> Date:    Wed, 27 Dec 1995 06:41:00 EST
> From:    jr19 <James_L_REVEAL at UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
> Subject: "Typotype" -- A Reply re Illustrations as lectotypes
>
>
> In conclusion, the specimen upon which an illustration is based can not be
> considered original material unless the author of the name actually examined
> the specimen. The informal term "typotype" is available and used by many to
> designate the specimen used to prepare an illustration. The Code address
> this under the heading of "original material" in Art. 9.
>
> Jim Reveal (MARY)

IS THE CONVERSE TRUE, I.E. THAT AN ILLUSTRATION CAN BE EXCLUDED AS
LECTOTYPE ONLY IF THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE AUTHOR DID NOT SEE IT?
FOLLOWING ART 9.8 OF THE TOKYO CODE, IF AN AUTHOR DESIGNATES SOMETHING AS
LECTOTYPE WHICH IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE LECTOTYPE, HE/SHE HAS IN FACT
DESIGNATED A NEOTYPE DESPITE THE USE OF THE WRONG TERM. HENCE SUCH AN
ILLUSTRATION IS A TYPE IF IT HAS BEEN SO DESIGNATED.

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Wed, 27 Dec 1995 08:23:58 -0400
> From:    "Bernard R. Baum, BRD, CLBRR" <AG190CER at NCCCOT.AGR.CA>
> Subject: Re: illustrations as lectotypes
>
> In his reply James Reveal is perfectly correct with respect to Linnean
> types. But, for post-Lineean types the situation is different in a number
> of situations. In the case of a lectotype, if one of the specimens from
> the type collection is found and if this specimen is in accord with the
> description, it recommended that you re-lectotypify using this specimen.
> A specimen takes precedence over an illustration.

I SEE NO BASIS IN THE ICBN FOR AUTOMATICALLY PREFERRING A SPECIMEN OVER
AN ILLUSTRATION. THE WAY I READ IT, THE TWO ARE EQUAL AND IF AN
ILLUSTRATION IS ELIGIBLE TO BE LECTOTYPE AND HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS SUCH,
ART. 9.13 WOULD PREVENT REPLACING IT WITH A SPECIMEN.

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Wed, 27 Dec 1995 08:11:30 -0600
> From:    Gomez Luis Diego <ldgomez at NS.OTS.AC.CR>
> Subject: Re: illustrations as lectotypes
>
> When there is an specimen that has served as model for an illustration
> that in turn is established as some kind of type, the specimen MUST be the
> type. Botanists only use illustrations when no specimen is actually
> available.

I AGREE THAT THIS IS PREFERABLE, AT LEAST FOR VASCULAR PLANTS
(PHYCOLOGISTS GENERALLY FIND ILLUSTRATIONS MORE USEFUL). HOWEVER, I SEE
NOTHING IN THE ICBN MAKING THIS MANDATORY. I HAVE SEEN MANY BOTANISTS
DECLARE ILLUSTRATIONS AS LECTOTYPES, PARTICULARLY ONES PUBLISHED WITH VERY
OLD NAMES. THIS IS EASIER THAN TRYING TO TRACK DOWN A SPECIMEN 150 YEARS
OLD.