[Taxacom] type collections

[Stephen Thorpe]

Depending on the details of the Botanical Code (of which I know nothing), you might be able to designate as holotype a lost specimen, by way of the photo. That might be preferable to having to make do with a diagnostically useless holotype (unless the genetic sequence is diagnostic and can be extracted from the suboptimal specimen).

Cheers, Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 5/1/16, Rick McNeill <juniper.botany at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: [Taxacom] type collections
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Tuesday, 5 January, 2016, 8:02 AM
 
 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.