Holotype fragment (botany)

[ralf becker]

Hello Sean.
Nice nit-picking;;;;
There are cases that the same species is described as two, because the
juvenile foliage differs from mature one. But it does not change the
typification, one name or both become a synonym, depending on the worker.
You right with the lectotype.
Regards
Ralf

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On Behalf
Of SEAN EDWARDS
Sent: 13 January 2006 21:48
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] Holotype fragment (botany)

  ralf becker <r.h.becker at READING.AC.UK> wrote:
  But you raised a good point with your tree and I like to get more
background
info, why the code does not allow multiple gathering from the same
individual.  Well, this may be only a theoretical reason, but what of
chimaera, grafts, or even somatic mutations where a branch of a tree may be
genetically distinct? This may be nit-picking, but in fact the code as it
is, anticipates such things to an extent. Even mistaken identity on
returning the the "same" tree.

  But even so this "stricter" code is not infallible - what of flower-only
(semi-)parasites, such as Pilosteles or Tapinanthus that might be described
in ignorance of their nature, a single gathering consisting of flowers and
leaves on a single branch? Presumably a later worker would select a
lectotype?

  Surely the phrase a "type tree" can be used legitimately like a "type
locality", useful information but not implying that the tree is the type
specimen.




Sean Edwards, Vine Cottage, The Street, Thursley, Surrey GU8 6QF, UK
sean.r.edwards at btinternet.com
tel: 01252-702-890 cell: 07768-706-295