Holotype fragment (botany)

[Richard Jensen]

Thanks, Ralf.  These points are well-taken, but they do not deal specifically
with what I was describing.  The definition of type makes no reference to
individual organism, just element and specimen.  Specimen is defined as you have
shown below, but the elements must have been collected at the same time.  Can I
go back to the "type" tree (according to the code, it doesn't exist) and collect
additional metarials at a later time and incorporate them as part of a "type
series"?  I don't think the code allows that.

And, in the case of multiple sheets, they must be "clearly" designated as
components of the type at the time the type is prepared.  If not, then the
element(s) on the single sheet constitute the holotype; all others specimens are
isotypes, at best.

Cheers,

DFick J

ralf becker wrote:

> Dear Richard
>
> 1) A specimen can be made up of several individuals, from a single gathering
> (still today).
>
> 8.2. For the purpose of typification a specimen is a gathering, or part of a
> gathering, of a single species or infraspecific taxon made at one time,
> disregarding admixtures (see Art. 9.12). It may consist of a single plant,
> parts of one or several plants, or of multiple small plants. A specimen is
> usually mounted on a single herbarium sheet or in an equivalent preparation,
> such as a box, packet, jar or microscope slide.
>
> 2) But also: A type can be multiple preparation (On different sheets or
> sheets and bottle etc) if labelled correctly.
>
> 8.3. A specimen may be mounted as more than one preparation, as long as the
> parts are clearly labelled as being part of that same specimen. Multiple
> preparations from a single gathering which are not clearly labelled as being
> part of a single specimen are duplicates, irrespective of whether the source
> was one plant or more than one (but see Art. 8.5).
>
> Ex. 3. The holotype specimen of Johannesteijsmannia magnifica J. Dransf.,
> Dransfield 862 (K), consists of a leaf mounted on five herbarium sheets, an
> inflorescence and infructescence in a box, and liquid-preserved material in
> a bottle.
>
> Regards
> Ralf Becker
> Reading
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On Behalf
> Of Richard Pyle
> Sent: 13 January 2006 18:42
> To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] Holotype fragment (botany)
>
> Thanks for the response, Paul.
>
> > 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.
>
> Technically no, because the Code still allows for historical syntypes
> (multiple individuals) for existing names, though new names must be anchored
> to a single name-bearing type individual. But more to the point -- in
> zoology, there is no such thing as an Isotype.  If an individual organism
> designated as a name-bearing type is divided into multiple parts, the sum of
> those parts collectively represent the type.
>
> > 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) .
>
> I agree that is a difference, but don't I see that as the main practical
> difference.  In zoology, the individual is the type, regardless of how much
> of it is removed and preserved in a museum, or when. Ported to botany, the
> individual tree would be the type, as would all parts removed from that tree
> (whether all at once or at different times), as well as all parts left on
> the tree to grow, die, etc.
>
> So, it's not really an issue that different parts can be taken at different
> times.  I think the main practical difference is more generally that multple
> parts are taken at all (regardless of whether it's the same time, or at
> different times) and preserved as different museum specimens, and split up
> to be stored at different herbaria.
>
> This, by itself, doesn't really impose any practical barriers to the
> treatment of the collective set of parts (i.e., the whole individual) as the
> name-bearing type, other than the increased potential risk that multiple
> parts *believed* to have been obtained from the same individual, might
> actually have not been (less likely if all parts are stored together in one
> place, or at least one Museum collection, as they almost always are for
> name-bearing zoological types).
>
> The biological difference, as discussed previously, is the ambiguity of
> identifying the "individual" -- which involves subjectivity in certain
> examples both in zoology and in botany, but evidently much moreso in botany.
>
> My thanks to everyone who took the time to respond to my query -- this has
> been very helpful in understanding why there are differences between the
> Codes in how a name-bearing type is defined.
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
> Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences
>   and Associate Zoologist in Ichthyology
> Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum
> 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
> Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
> email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html

--
Richard J. Jensen              | tel: 574-284-4674
Department of Biology      | fax: 574-284-4716
Saint Mary's College         | e-mail: rjensen at saintmarys.edu
Notre Dame, IN 46556    | http://www.saintmarys.edu/~rjensen