Holotype fragment (botany)

[Edwards, G.B.]

It is certainly possible to have multiple samples of a zoological
specimen without having to periodically maim it.  To build on what
others have noted:  If you raised an insect from an egg to adult, you
would have a shed chorion, several larval skins, a pupal skin (in the
case of holometabolous orders), and the imago.  These would all
represent the same individual.  If the specimen was unique and turned
out to be an undescribed species, I'm not sure (without consulting the
Code) how to deal with typification of the series.  In a case like this,
presumably one stage (usually but not necessarily the imago) would be
chosen as the holotype.  What do the rest become?  Perhaps someone could
enlighten me if they know the answer.  Possibly some examples of this
exist already, as it is a fairly common practice in some orders (e.g.,
Lepidoptera, aquatic orders) to rear specimens.

-- 
G. B. Edwards, Ph.D.  [Your Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman] 
-- 
Curator: Arachnida (except Acari), Myriapoda, Terrestrial Crustacea,
Thysanoptera 
Florida State Collection of Arthropods, FDACS, Division of Plant
Industry 
P.O.Box 147100, 1911 SW 34th St., Gainesville, FL 32614-7100 USA 
(352) 372-3505 x194; fax (352) 334-0737; edwardg at doacs.state.fl.us 

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On
Behalf Of Paul van Rijckevorsel
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 12:57 PM
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] Holotype fragment (botany)

There are various differences between the botanical and zoological
world.
The point we were discussing is that in botany one individual may become
several different specimens and therefore several different types, and
that
this is mandatory if gatherings are made at different times. As I
understand
it from you, in zoology one individual means one type, no matter what.

The practical reason for this will be that in botany it will be much
more
common to have an individual that remains in a fixed place for a long
while:
this allows different gatherings to be made at different times. It is
much
less tempting to do this with animals: i.e. releasing them (minus the
collected parts) and then recatching them (to collect parts that could
not
be collected the first time) .
Paul

From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG>
> I don't see the fundamental difference between botany and zoology on
this.
> It is equally desirable to have different lifestages of a given animal
taxon (larvae, males/females, juveniles/adults, etc.) in the original
material.  This is not only inconvenient, but usually impossible to do
within a single individual organism.  Thus, in zoological practice,
*one*
individual is selected as the name-bearing type; and the others are
regarded
as non-name-bearing material (e.g., paratypes, etc.).

> Or, are you saying that there is a greater risk in botany that
multiple
> parts derived from what is *believed* to be the same individual may
turn
out not to be so? In other words, is it a common problem in botany that
a
> taxonomist wants to include a full set of seasonally disparate parts,
and
> thus collects the parts from what is *believed* to be the same tree
over
> different times, but later discovers an error in that parts were
actually
> acquired from more than one individual (=potentially more than one
taxon)?
> Analagous cases in zoology can happen with syntype series or composite
> specimens, but these cases are rare and are handled by the Code.

> It seems to me that the only biologically-based rationale for the
difference between botanical and zoological practice is the relative
frequency with which there is substantial ambiguity in what constitutes
a
"single individual organism".  This is a problem for both kingdoms, but
evidently a more frequent problem in plants than in animals.

> Aloha,
> Rich
>