[Taxacom] type collections

[Scott Thomson]

If i am understanding you correctly. The first and lost collection has
never been formally declared as a type series. So if you now describe it
based on the second collection one of those is the holotype. A neotype is a
replacement of a formally declared holotype or lectotype. No issue using
the photos, they could be added to the data with the holotype but are not
types in themselves. The holotype has to represent the species it does not
have to have all the characters.

Scott
On Jan 4, 2016 5:03 PM, "Rick McNeill" <juniper.botany at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have a question about types.
>
> I have taxon on which I am working.  It is known from one location and the
> highest number of plants found at any time was around 50.
>
> I took high resolution images of the plants and collected 10 at the end of
> the season. I wrote a description from those plants and images.  I then
> attempted to send the collection to another researcher and it was lost.  I
> went back the next year and made another collection, but none of the plants
> were in fruit or flower.  The description was not written or expanded from
> these plants because they did not have all of the characters.
>
> Should the second collection be designated as a neotype or a holotype?
> Should the images be included as part of the type?
>
> rick
>
>
>
> _____________________
> Richard McNeill
> Feral Botanist
> 702-415-5149
> juniper.botany at gmail.com
> Botany photos
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/82244653@N08/collections/72157640888456005/>
> Adventure photos
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/82244653@N08/collections/72157640888592535/>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
>