Holotype [ Scanned for viruses ]

[Paul Kirk]

Yes, I did miss something, thanks to those who corrected this - too many balls in the air at the same time ;-)
 
I have always argued that the simplest solution to trying to define what can and cannot be the holotype is ...
 
The holotype is what the publishing author says it is - plain and simple. The Code already has provision for dealing with mixed (lectotypification), lost (lectotypification or neotypification), or inadequate (epitypification) holotypes so lets use these provision and simplify this bit of the Code. As a mycologist (primarily interested in microfungi) my holotypes may consist of many individuals (hundereds or thousands) for which I have no knowlege of whether they are genetically the same or quite distinct below the rank chosen for the name. Quite the opposite scenario of the Ex. 2 cited below.
 
Regards,
 
Paul
 
Dr Paul M. Kirk 
Biosystematist 
CABI Bioscience 
Bakeham Lane 
Egham 
Surrey TW20 9TY 
UK 
tel. (+44) (0)1491 829023, fax (+44) (0)1491 829100, email p.kirk at cabi.org 


________________________________

From: Taxacom Discussion List on behalf of ralf becker
Sent: Thu 12/01/2006 16:48
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: [TAXACOM] Holotype [ Scanned for viruses ]



 Dear Guido.

I hope this answer your question.

This EX.5 is found in article 8.3.

Ex. 5. The holotype specimen of Eugenia ceibensis Standl., Yuncker & al.
8309, is mounted on a single herbarium sheet at F. A fragment was removed
from the specimen subsequent to its designation as holotype and is now
conserved in LL. The fragment is mounted on a herbarium sheet along with a
photograph of the holotype and is labelled "fragment of type!". The fragment
is no longer part of the holotype specimen because it is not permanently
conserved in the same herbarium as the holotype. Such fragments have the
status of a duplicate, i.e. an isotype.

Yes Paul you missing something.

9.1. A holotype of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is the one
specimen or illustration (but see Art.
<http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclature/code/SaintLouis/0041Ch4Sec2a037.htm>
37.4) used by the author, or designated by the author as the nomenclatural
type. As long as a holotype is extant, it fixes the application of the name
concerned (but see Art. 9.13; see also Art.
<http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclature/code/SaintLouis/0014Ch2Sec2a010.htm>
10).

And what you make of this:

Ex. 2. The holotype of Vitellaria paradoxa C. F. Gaertn. (1807) is a seed of
unknown provenance (P), clearly belonging to the species currently known as
Butyrospermum paradoxum (C. F. Gaertn.) Hepper. However, the two subspecies
recognized within that species can only be distinguished by characters of
foliage or inflorescence. Hall & Hurdle (in Taxon 44: 410. 1995) designated
an epitype with foliage, Mungo Park (BM). It belongs to the western
subspecies, now to be known as B. paradoxum subsp. paradoxum.

The Holotype is a seed. Is a seed a specimen????

Regards

Ralf Becker

Reading