what becomes of "kleptotypes" if the holotype is destroyed?

Priscilla Muriel bioprisc at BIOLOGY.AU.DK
Sun Nov 9 15:14:01 CST 2003


Hello,
You could check both articles 8.3 (example 5) and article 9.17 of the St.
Louis code of botanical nomenclature:
Any part subtracted from a type collection (a kleptotype), posterior to its
designation as type and not kept together with the specimen to which it used
to belong, becomes a real duplicate of this collection if it is properly
labelled (the origin, collection data must be properly reported in such
duplicate). Therefore, a piece subtracted from a holotype is actually an
isotype according to the article 8.3.
I suggest also article 9.17 because it deals with the rediscovery of
original material, in case you might want to superseed a posteriorly
designated neotype. I must say, I suggest this in case you are dealing with
plant collections, I am not sure how you should proceed in case you are
talking about animals, but I can imagine something similar must be stated in
the zoological code.

Greetings
Priscilla

                   
Priscilla Muriel M.
Dept. of Systematic Botany, University of Aarhus,
Herbarium, Bygn. 137, Universitetsparken
8000 Ã…rhus C, Denmark
Phone: (+ 45)  89 42 47 10  (Work)  /  (+ 45)  28 77 50 37  (private)
Fax:   ( +45)  86 13 93 26
e-mail: bioprisc at biology.au.dk
http://herb140.bio.au.dk/botany/PersonalPages/Priscilla/index.html
> 
> From: Jason Mate <jfmate at HOTMAIL.COM>
> Reply-To: Jason Mate <jfmate at HOTMAIL.COM>
> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 12:45:32 +0100
> To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] what becomes of "kleptotypes" if the holotype is
> destroyed?
> 

> As long as the material is usable for identification then it is the defacto
> holotype (since it was a fragment of the original hootype). Otherwise the
> holotype is lost and another one needs to be found/ designated. I don't see
> much confusion in this other than determining if the remaining material has
> any use or not. Unfortunately this situation happens all too often,
> frequently in circumstances similar to the example provided by Ms Bankworth,
> so this question is of general interest.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Jason
> 
> 
>> From: Mary Barkworth <Mary at BIOLOGY.USU.EDU>
>> Reply-To: Mary Barkworth <Mary at BIOLOGY.USU.EDU>
>> To: Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] what becomes of "kleptotypes" if the holotype is
>>              destroyed?
>> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 17:26:50 -0700
>> 
>> Personally I hate to think of a fragment becoming more that a kleptotype
>> but I suppose it may indeed be the holotype.  If an insect ate all but a
>> small fragment of a holotype the bit of specimen that remains would
>> still presumably be considered the holotype. The most desirable
>> situation would be for it to be possible to locate a more adequate
>> specimen, possibly a duplicate of the holotype, in another institution.
>> The Code, as I recall has recommendations for selecting neotypes. Would
>> designation of a neotype in the circumstances Thomas outlines be
>> permitted under the Code?
>> 
>> For me it is a hypothetical question, at least for now.
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> 




More information about the Taxacom mailing list