[Taxacom] type collections

Tue Jan 5 02:29:46 CST 2016

Frustrating though it may be, in my opinion it would be scientifically and nomenclaturally preferable to wait until adequate fertile material suitable to serve as the holotype can be obtained. No point in complicating matters and creating a situation which could be misunderstood and debated for years to come. 

Pete

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: 05 January 2016 00:11
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Norbert Holstein
Cc: Rick McNeill
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] type collections

There is always someone who misunderstands this! The type can still be a (lost) specimen, known via a photograph. "I hereby designate the holotype to be the specimen shown in the following photograph ..."

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 5/1/16, Norbert Holstein <holstein at lrz.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] type collections
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Cc: "Rick McNeill" <juniper.botany at gmail.com>
 Received: Tuesday, 5 January, 2016, 12:02 PM

 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
 Universit t Bonn
 Nees-Institut
 f. Biodversit t 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-Universit t M nchen & Botanische  Staatssammlung  M nchen  _______________________________________________
 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.

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4492/11328 - Release Date: 01/05/16