[Taxacom] When electing a neotype, how to define the other gender

[Rafaël Govaerts]

Yes Jim, I agree. What I find most incomprehensible is that more and more authors publish new taxa under the ICN and cite both a holotype AND an epitype. Normally the holotype has flowers or is male and the epitype has fruits or is female. They then go on to cite more paratypes. I very much question the validity of such epitypes.
Rafaël

________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Jim L. Reveal [jlr326 at cornell.edu]
Sent: 01 October 2013 10:59
To: Paul Kirk; Paul van Rijckevorsel; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] When electing a neotype, how to define the other gender

Dear Paul:

But remember the wording in Art. 9.8 of the ICN, namely an epitype may be designated ONLY when all material type associated "with a validly published name, is demonstrably ambiguous and cannot be critically identified for purposes of the precise application of the name." The vast majority of recently proposed epitypes are not valid as there was either no attempt to review "all original material" or to demonstrate that all of the material was "demonstrably ambiguous." Thus, unless the only way the type material can be identified is via extracting DNA -- e.g., no distinguishing or diagnostic features exist to distinguish the taxon from others at the same rank -- as suggested below, designation of an epitype is NOT possible.

Jim Reveal

________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] on behalf of Paul Kirk [P.Kirk at kew.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:24 AM
To: Paul van Rijckevorsel; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] When electing a neotype, how to define the other gender

and if the holotype, lectotype or neotype exists but is not 'usable', an epitype can be designated - great for all those names from the 19th century with one line diagnoses and no extractable DNA (using current technology) but nonetheless names in everyday use so worth saving for users of names outside taxonomy :-)

Paul

________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Paul van Rijckevorsel [dipteryx at freeler.nl]
Sent: 01 October 2013 10:17
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] When electing a neotype, how to define the other gender

From: <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 5:53 PM

[...]
> I know that there are people who even want to have paratypes kicked out of
> the Code as they are no name bearers, but in our fear that we might touch
> something that is science as supposed to pure nomenclature, we should not
> forget that the Code should be a helpful tool, not a statement of pure
> nomenclatural philosophy. Shouldn't it?

***
This invites a comparison to how the ICNafp handles paratypes.
Interestingly, the definition of syntype and paratype is comparable
in both Codes, but their status is not. In the ICNafp syntype and
paratype have the same status, which is midway between the status
of syntype and the status of paratype in the zoological Code, that
is, they cannot be name-bearing types but do play a part in the
selection of a lectotype.

On the whole, the ICNafp is considerably cleaner in how it handles
the matter; there is nothing as awkward as a type series, and there
are not all those conditions for designating a neotype. In the absence
of a holotype, a lectotype can be designated from the original material;
in the absence of original material a neotype can be designated and
this can be material as recent as one likes. If there are real problems
a proposal for conservation can be submitted, setting a type.

Common to both Codes is the presence of terms containing the word
element "-type" for things that are not name-bearing types, and this is
indeed confusing to the newcomer, but it seems to late to do anything
about this.

Paul


_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.

_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.