[Taxacom] type collections

Tue Jan 5 14:31:35 CST 2016

Alan's comment (1) suggests to me that there is some misunderstanding of the significance and role of a primary type (i.e. holotype in this case). The role of a type series (which may or may not include more than just the primary type) is to help subsequent workers to recognise the species if the original description should be insufficient. If the original description is fine, then we continue to keep the type series safe just in case a problem should arise in future. The role of the primary type, by contrast, is simply to define where the name goes if the type series should prove to be a mixed series. It has no other function (except as part of, or perhaps the totality of, the type series). Therefore, a holotype which is not diagnostic is completely useless. Given that a good photo of a specimen might be fully diagnostic, at least in some cases, it seems to be counterproductive to forbid type designation by way of photo, and instead insist on a nondiagnostic holotype (and there may be advantages for rare species not to collect a specimen). But I don't know what the Botanical Code says about this. The issue of sequencing may render a vegetative holotype diagnostic, again I don't know. What should be done in this case? Well, assuming that the description is adequate, it doesn't matter what gets chosen as holotype. If the Botanical Code does forbid holotype designation by way of photo, then just designate the most diagnostic specimen at hand, and deal with any problems if they should arise (chances are that they won't arise). Some museum will have to be the custodian of a completely useless holotype, but that's just a side effect of the rules of the Botanical Code. However, it would be nice to think that the writers of the Code considered these issues and made sensible decisions.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 6/1/16, Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] type collections
 To: "John McNeill" <johnm at rom.on.ca>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Peter.Phillipson at mobot.org" <Peter.Phillipson at mobot.org>
 Cc: "juniper.botany at gmail.com" <juniper.botany at gmail.com>
 Received: Wednesday, 6 January, 2016, 1:32 AM

 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.
 _______________________________________________
 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.