Taxacom: When to designate lectotypes

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

I agree with Adam:
Am 20.02.2025 um 19:44 schrieb Adam Cotton via Taxacom:
> John asked:
>> Can a single syntype be referred to as a holotype even though no 
>> individual specimen was designated in the publication?

> I would say the answer to this should usually be 'no', unless it is 
> absolutely obvious from the original description that the author only 
> saw a single specimen.

It is even clearer: A holotype can only be fixed in the original 
publication (Art. 73.1.3). This can either be done by original 
designation (employing the term "holotype" or another unambiguous term), 
or by monotypy (in those cases where an author stated "I saw one single 
specimen").

In the Rothschild case there are no such statements. If only external 
evidence suggests that such a description was in fact based on only one 
single specimen, this is a syntype, because that specimen was not fixed 
as a holotype in the original publication.

The original question was about journal editors who tend to reject 
manuscipts with questionable lectotype designations if there is no 
justified need.
Frank's argument is certainly valid, however Gary also has a point that 
designating a lectotype from several syntypes without knowing much about 
the possible differences between them may be seen as questionable and 
also as a potential threat to stability (if the selected specimen later 
turns out to belong to a rare taxon, while another specimen of the type 
series belongs to a frequent taxon for which the name has been used 
since long).

Best wishes
Francisco