[Taxacom] type collections
John McNeill
johnm at rom.on.ca
Tue Jan 5 06:30:40 CST 2016
Somehow in my e-mail sent just now the system deleted two lines which
made nonsense of the text. Moreover a whole lot of garbage was inserted
at the foot.
[The lines were:
may be true under the ICZN but such a statement would not nowadays
permit valid publication of the name of a species or infraspecific taxon
under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and
plants (ICN) and as Rick McNeill (no relation) apparently wants to
describe a new plant species it is that Code that is relevant.]
The full e-mail is pasted again here:
Stephen Thorpe’s statement:
> 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 ..."
may be true under the ICZN but such a statement would not nowadays
permit valid publication of the name of a species or infraspecific taxon
under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and
plants (ICN) and as Rick McNeill (no relation) apparently wants to
describe a new plant species it is that Code that is relevant.
Art. 40.7 requires that “on or after 1 January 1990 .... the single
herbarium or collection or institution in which the type is conserved
must be specified”, so a lost specimen cannot serve as the type of the
name of a taxon being newly described; moreover, on or after 1 January
2007 the type may not be an illustration but must be a specimen (except
in certain circumnstances for microscopic algae or microfungi) (Art.
40.4 & 40.5).
In summary, Rick either makes do with a vegetative specimen or, much
better, follows Peter Phillipson’s advice “to wait until adequate
fertile material suitable to serve as the holotype can be obtained.”
Best wishes for 2016
John McNeill
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John McNeill, Honorary Associate, Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh
Director Emeritus, Royal Ontario Museum;
Mailing address: Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, Scotland,
U.K.
Telephone: +44-131-248-2848; fax: +44-131-248-2901
Home office: +44-162-088-0651
e-mail: jmcneill at rbge.ac.uk (mail to johnm at rom.on.ca is also read)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
>>> "John McNeill" <johnm at rom.on.ca> 01/05/16 11:47 AM >>>
StephenThorpe’s statement:
> The type can still be a (lost) specimen, known via a photograph.
"Ihereby designate the holotype to be the specimen shown in the
followingphotograph ..."
may be true under the Code that is relevant.
Art. 40.7 requires that “on or after 1 January 1990 .... the single
herbariumor collection or institution in which the type is conserved
must be specified”,so a lost specimen cannot serve as the type of the
name of a taxon being newlydescribed; moreover, on or after 1 January
2007 the type may not be anillustration but must be a specimen (except
in certain circumnstances formicroscopic algae or microfungi) (Art. 40.4
& 40.5).
In summary, Rick either makes do with a vegetative specimen or, much
better,follows Peter Phillipson’s advice “to wait until adequate fertile
materialsuitable to serve as the holotype can be obtained.”
Best wishes for 2016
John McNeill
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John McNeill, Honorary Associate, Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh
Director Emeritus, Royal OntarioMuseum;
Mailing address: Royal Botanic Garden,Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, Scotland,
U.K.
Telephone: fax: +44-131-248-2901
Home office: +44-162-088-0651
e-mail: jmcneill at rbge.ac.uk (mail to johnm at rom.on.ca is also read)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> "Peter B. Phillipson" <Peter.Phillipson at mobot.org> 01/05/16 8:31 AM
>>>
Frustrating though it may be, in my opinion it would be scientifically
and nomenclaturally preferable to wait unt
il adequate fertile material
suicomplicating 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 Mc
Neill" <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
chosdefinition 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 Arc
hive back to 1992 may be sear _______________________________________________
> 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 M
ailing 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.kThe 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
_______________________________________________
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.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list