Taxacom: When to designate lectotypes

Thu Feb 20 11:05:40 CST 2025

Hi Francisco and Paulo, et al.,

When describing a new species, most authors nowadays select one holotype instead of a series of syntypes. That indicates that most authors consider a single name-bearing type to be more useful than a collective of specimens as the name-bearer.
It follows that selecting a lectotype from a series of syntypes should be considered useful by most authors. I would strongly advice against adding a restriction like Art. 75.2 for lectotype designations. If people think that having a single name-bearer is better than having a collective, then designating lectotypes should even be considered a part of the routine of a taxonomic revision (not a matter of curatorial routine though as it needs to be published, and publication is not part of curatorial routine; for that we now have Recommendation 74G in Declaration 44, Bull.Zool.Nom. 60.2003: 263: "Recommendation 74G: Not merely for curatorial purposes. The designation of lectotypes should be done as part of a revisionary and other taxonomic work to enhance the stability of nomenclature, and not for mere curatorial convenience.").

Cheers

Frank

Dr. Frank-Thorsten Krell

Senior Curator of Entomology, Editor-in-Chief
Department of Zoology
Denver Museum of Nature & Science
2001 Colorado Blvd
Denver, Colorado 80205-5798, U.S.A.
Frank.krell at dmns.org
Phone 303.370.8244
Fax 303.331.6492
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FFrank-Thorsten-Krell&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cb59cac7e8eac478949b708dd51d0cfa9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638756679474585383%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wLMjkwg68wHSGNWqrglflJlfcZXYxqBUeb1hVQ9BaS4%3D&reserved=0
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fcitations%3Fuser%3Da5mPMOQAAAAJ%26hl%3Den&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cb59cac7e8eac478949b708dd51d0cfa9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638756679474606343%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6lcI52%2FeC%2BVxYyzGPdTLqTe84OYlS%2F8P7RUtC0Y2BRU%3D&reserved=0
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dmns.org%2Fscience%2Fresearch%2Fglobal-entomology-research%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cb59cac7e8eac478949b708dd51d0cfa9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638756679474633210%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MZwXjmGzrpyfzKudJlxJYK33QY2FzzjSTFYvhQoio8c%3D&reserved=0
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dmns.org%2Fscience%2Fresearch%2Fcolorado-entomology-research%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cb59cac7e8eac478949b708dd51d0cfa9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638756679474647224%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=937qAI0JVKhQmfqzmTCOBVPsndlo0UrtkJZw%2BCZ55bE%3D&reserved=0

Regardless of the time I send this email, I do not expect you to read, take any action, or reply to this email outside of your usual working hours.
* Step into our new experience "Discovering Teen Rex" to witness scientists excavating a rare juvenile T.rex fossil, followed by the "T. REX" movie on the giant screen Infinity Theater.

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 6:53 AM
To: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
Subject: Re: Taxacom: When to designate lectotypes

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
>
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for 38 years, 1987-2025.

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.