Lectotype designations

[Andrei Lobanov]

Dear colleagues,
        Dr W.Pulawski asked me to forward to you the attached comments on
the discussion about lectotype designations.
        Best regards
        A. Lobanov
        www.zin.ru/Animalia/Coleoptera/eng/lobanov.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Colleague:

As you well know, the Fourth Edition of the International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature has been in
power since 1 January 2000.  It includes a number of  novelties, one of
which, in my opinion, is unfortunate
and should be repealed as soon as possible (Article 74.7.3).  The
reasons for my opinion are given in my
letter to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of 21
November 2000 (copy attached).
An individual voice, however, is likely to generate no more than a
polite answer with no consequences
("your letter is deserving attention", "I share your view, but cannot
change the Code representing a
collective opinion", etc.).  Therefore, I would greatly appreciate it,
if you join me in protesting this
innovation and to send a supporting letter to the Commission.  You are
welcomed to use my letter as a
template, with necessary modifications.


Sincerely,
Wojciech J. Pulawski

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

21 November 2000
P.K. Tubbs, Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
c/o Museum of Natural History, Cromwell Road
London SW7 5BD,
Great Britain
Dear Commission:

As a practicing taxonomist with some 40 years of experience, I feel
obliged to protest against the
Article 74.7.3 that first appeared in the Fourth Edition of the Code.
It requires that "to be valid, a lectotype
designation made after 1999 must contain an express statement of the
taxonomic purpose of the
designation".
In my view, this Article is objectionable and unnecessary for two
reasons:
1.      It requires a justification of the obvious. It is true that there are
some rare cases of failure in
lectotype  designation (e.g., specimens unsuitable for identification
purposes are designated when
better specimens are present; or a lectotype is selected from a mixed
series, changing the
established species concept or resulting in other negative nomenclatural
impact).  Unfortunately,
we have no protection mechanism against unqualified work, and the formal
statement required by
the new Code adds nothing to the quality of lectotype designation. There
is no need to justify in
words the usual process of typification, the importance of which is
clearly stated in the Code
(Article 61.1).  It is also inconsistent  to require a statement of the
lectotype designation, whether
no similar requirement is expected for the holotype designation.
2.      Since every designation of a lectotype has to be individual (Article
74.3), it requires multiple
repetitions when more than one lectotype is being designated in a
paper.  For example, I am
preparing a large paper on Tachysphex wasps in which some 40 lectotypes
are designated.  Article
74.7.3 forces me to repeat 40 times the formula "here  designated in
order to ensure the name's
proper and consistent application".  I find it to be ridiculous.
I would strongly recommend that this ill-conceived innovation to the
Code be removed at your earliest
convenience.
Sincerely yours,

Wojciech J. Pulawski
Curator
Department of Entomology
California Academy of Sciences

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Some comments received after submission of the above letter are worth
attention:

1.      "The Code says nowhere that the lectotypes should be designated by a
specialist, nor does it prevent
designations made for the sole purpose of increasing the number of
lectotypes in an institution or
personal collection.  Consequently, lectotype designations made by a
non-specialist with a statement
like "here designated in order to have as many primary types in this
collection as possible and thus to
facilitate the taxonomic work of specialists working here" will be in
agreement with the Code, even if
the sex of the lectotype and the label information are not provided
(these are only recommended,
Recommendation 74C)."
2.      F. Cherot and O.S.G. Pauwels  designated 23 lectotypes in their
paper:
2000. Les specimens-types de Miridae (Insecta: Heteroptera) des
collections du Musee Royal de
l'Afrique centrale (Tervuren, Belgique).  Musee Royal de l'Afrique
Centrale Tervuren, Belgique.
Documentation Zoologique  24:1-23
which is a list of types, not a taxonomic revision.  For each
designation they used a statement "Afin de
lever tous risques d'ambiguite concernant le taxon nominal du niveau
espece defini par ostension
comme [name, author, date], nous en avons selectionne le lectotype".
If the intention of Article 74.7.3 was to prevent lectotype designations
as a curatorial practice, then it
failed badly, only resulting in lengthy repetitions.
3.      The prescribed formula has not been used (only "here designated" or
an equivalent) in a number of
recent papers that appeared in prestigious journals.  Five  random
examples include:
Caldara, R. 2000. Revisione dei Pachytychius delle regioni Afrotropicale
e Orientale (Coleoptera
Curculionidae). Memorie della Societa Entomologica Italiana 78:31-166 (8
lectotypes designated).
Huber, B.  2000.  New World pholcid spiders Araneae: Pholcidae): a
revision at generic level.  Bulletin
of the American Museum of Natural History  254:1-348.
Norris, K.R.  2000.  Lectotype designation and description of the
Tasmanian blowfly Calliphora
dispar Macquart 1846 (Diptera: Calliphoridae).  Australian Journal of
Entomology  39:256-258
(accepted for publication 9 June 2000).
Puplesis, R. and G.S. Robinson.  2000.  A review of the Central and
South American Nepticulidae
(Lepidoptera) with special reference to Belize.  Bulletin of the Natural
History Museum.
Entomology Series.  69:1-114.
van Tol, J.  2000.  The Odonata of Sulawesi and adjacent Islands.  Part
5.  The genus Protosticta Selys
(Platystictidae).  Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 143:221-266.
According to Article 74.7.3, lectotype designations in these papers are
invalid, but rejecting them
would not help taxonomy. Rather, the Article should be rejected.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wojciech J. Pulawski <wpulawski at calacademy.org>
 Department of Entomology
 California Academy of Sciences