[Taxacom] type collections

[Norbert Holstein]

Since 1 Jan 2007, the type of a new taxon must be a specimen (Art. 40.4; 
except for the cases in Art. 40.5 but those are not important here).
The holotype must be chosen from your second series, it cannot be a 
photograph. For the definition of your new taxon only the holotype is of 
importance. What you write in the diagnosis is secondary and basically 
only exists to illustrate the idea the author has in mind why this taxon 
is new. Technically, the diagnosis does not even need to correspond to 
the cited material, although this would be rather bad style. By adding 
the photographs though, your point might be sufficiently clear enough to 
convince other botanists to accept your taxon.

If no crucially necessary character for identification is shown in your 
type material, you can either postpone the publication of your taxon (in 
my opinion the best way), or you publish now and create an epitype when 
the material becomes available. However, not having the important 
characters in the type material but only as photographs is something 
some editors and reviewers might find hard to accept.

Regards,
Norbert


> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

---
Dr. rer. nat. Norbert Holstein
Universität Bonn
Nees-Institut f. Biodversität d. Pflanzen
Meckenheimer Allee 170
53115 Bonn
Germany
Phone: +49-228-73-2123
http://www.nees.uni-bonn.de/staff/pages/Dr.%20Norbert%20Holstein
---
ex Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München & Botanische Staatssammlung 
München