Taxacom: When to designate lectotypes

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Dear Paolo,

Code-4 has no clear and unambiguous direct statement to avoid lectotype 
designations if they are taxonomically not necessary. Art. 74.3 has a 
rregulation that goes in this direction, and declares that designations 
must be "specifically for one nominal taxon and must have as its object 
the definition of that taxon", others are invalid. This regulation 
contains two parts: (1) the designation must refer to the taxon 
individually (not by a general statement explaining which specimens in a 
chain of various taxa should be the lectotype), and (2) the definition 
of that taxon must be the intention.

(Note: The term "definion of that taxon" is inappropriate, the standard 
of reference for the application of the name is meant).

If journal editors reject manuscripts with unnecessary lectotype 
designations (in situations where the definition of the taxon is clear 
anyway) they might have in mind this provision in Art. 74.3.

Another reason to reject manuscripts with a lectotype designation based 
on one single syntype may be the literal meaning of the term 
"lectotype", in which "lecto" refers to an act of selecting. You can 
only select among various specimens, not if only one specimen is present.

With some changes in the next edition of the Code the currently unclear 
situation could be improved.
One provision could clarify that a lectotype selection based on one 
single syntype would not automatically be invalid for that reason alone.
Another provision could establish a restriction like in Art. 75.2 for 
neotypes, that a lectotype must not be designated as an end in itself, 
or as a matter of curatorial routine. This appears to be a quite 
successful model in neotypes and has the effect that unnecessary neotype 
designations are usually avoided.
Finally a new Recommendation could be established that lectotype 
designations should be done as part of a revisionary or other taxonomic 
work to enhance the stability of nomenclature, and not for curatorial 
purposes.

If this helps.

Best wishes
Francisco

Am 20.02.2025 um 08:06 schrieb Paolo G. Albano via Taxacom:
> Dear All,
> as editor of a malacological journal, I often receive manuscripts that 
> contain lectotype designations that - in my opinion - are not necessary.
> I think the ICZN Code is somehow vague on the situations where a 
> lectotype designation is needed, apart from recommending it should not 
> be done for mere "curatorial purposes".
> This ambiguity, and the apparent fondness for lectotype designations of 
> some authors, sometimes ends up in a clash with them, and manuscripts 
> rejected or withdrawn.
> Is there any paper/chapter/report that discusses in detail the 
> situations when lectotype designations are necessary, unnecessary or 
> definitely to be avoided? It would help me much in confronting authors 
> (or maybe recalibrating my approach).
> Thank you all,
> Paolo
>