[Taxacom] type collections
Weakley, Alan
weakley at bio.unc.edu
Tue Jan 5 06:32:17 CST 2016
A couple of thoughts:
1. While it is true that in theory the type is the sole exemplar of the named taxon and nothing else matters, in practice it is the totality of evidence provided that will result in the acceptance or not of the taxon as "good". Type specimens generally fail to present the totality of evidence: many plants are not in flower or fruit simultaneously, so a single gathering cannot contain both (though features present at these two stages may be critical), flower color may not be preserved, 3D positioning of parts is lost (but may be roughly inferable), bark or root characteristics of woody plants are not generally captured, etc. A phenological separation of two taxa (demonstrative of no interbreeding) cannot be demonstrated by a single specimen gathered at one place in one year. Habitat differences (one occurs strictly on serpentine, the other strictly on granite) are not demonstrated by a holotype (even if habitat is indicated).
2. In this molecular age, one might argue that a single vegetative specimen collected in 2016 and carefully dried is a better holotype than a 250 year old fertile specimen.
3. No one seems to have noted the situation implied by Rick, a (putative) species represented by a single population of < 50 species, ca. 10 of which have already been collected. Conservation and scientific ethics seem to come into play here, though it is hard to really make a judgment from the information provided exactly how they weigh. It seems as though the (putative) species may be highly imperiled, including by additional collection, so there may be some urgency to get it named "officially". And, it may be overall the best course to do so with a less-then-ideal type if the "totality of evidence" (including the high resolution photographs mentioned) can carry the case.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John McNeill
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 7:31 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Peter.Phillipson at mobot.org; John McNeill <johnm at rom.on.ca>
Cc: juniper.botany at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] type collections
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.
_______________________________________________
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