[Taxacom] type collections

[Scott Thomson]

Hi Rick,

then it is as I thought. The first collection being unpublished has no
status, use the data off them as you feel you need to, since you clearly
examined them, photographed them they have characters your holotypes do not
have, no problem, but the setting of the holotype must be declared in a
publication, and will come from your second collection.

Your description will of course need to be updated to include a description
of the actual holotype, you can refer to your additional material and
information for the other characters. However, from a nomenclatural
viewpoint, all that matters is an established type specimen, with a
diagnosis etc. Unpublished material cannot be a holotype.

Cheers, Scott

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Rick McNeill <juniper.botany at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Scott
>
>
> The first collection were never formally published, but the taxon was
> described from the first collection.  The second collection did not have
> flowers of fruits, so it was not used other than as a collection of the
> plant from the type locality.
>
> 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/>
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>>
>>
>


-- 
Scott Thomson
Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo
Divisão de Vertebrados (Herpetologia)
Avenida Nazaré, 481, Ipiranga
04263-000, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
http://www.carettochelys.com
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
<https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#>
Skype: Faendalimas
Mobile Phone: +55 11 974 74 9095