Decades ago we were hearing of the term "combination hunters" who were fanatically searching for new combinations.
With the advent of digital imaging, it is now easy to locate and pinpoint a type specimen and some researchers are now availing this opportunity and designating lectotypes of plant names at random, without any in-depth knowledge on the particular plant group/s. While doing so, they are very cleverly choosing endemic species at random! Whether such researchers could be named as "Lectotype hunters" as these designations, however beneficial for the authors, are unfortunately not of much help in resolving taxonomic problems and better understanding of the particular group/s.
It is fortunate that some experts have realized the truth and as a result a number of international journals are now refusing 'general lectotypification' papers, as a policy matter, unless they have any relevance to nomenclature or they are designated as a consequence of a monograph. Even the journal Taxon is now being flooded with papers dealing with lectotypification of Linnaean names (personal communication) and they are outright rejecting such papers on the ground of lack of wider audience.
We have already published a paper in Current Science in this aspect.
I have attached the PDF of the paper.
Rightly explained. @Subir. More and more good revisions are the need of the day for bringing out a Flora. Mere haphazard lectotypification will not help.
Agreed that misjudged lectypifications are creating ambiguity in nomenclature of plants. So, the nomenclatural issues should be dealed by the concerned expert of the particular group rather than general taxonomist.
I completely agree that hasty / poorly-justified typifications can be very detrimental, especially when taxonomic knowledge is lacking.
That said, I think that talking of botanists active in nomenclature as "lectotype hunters" is misleading and unfortunate. Please mind that correct, high-quality typifications are very important to taxonomy, and consequently also to all other sciences that rely on correct specimen identifications (i.e. all biological sciences). I don't think it would be necessary to explain here the importance of types for the application of names.
Some advocate that typifications should only be published as part of full taxonomic revisions. While that would be a more traditional approach to taxonomy, today taxonomy is advancing much faster thanks to new, more expedite publication venues, which are not decreasing the quality of our science (so long as proper peer-review takes place). Bad articles, and bad taxonomic revisions, do exist, and will continue to be published, irrespective of their size. Please note well: I am not saying that floras and revisions are not important.
To conclude, considering the pace with which science is advancing, and the current funding environment, it would be destructive to try to restrict the publication of typifications only to full taxonomic revisions. In addition to unnecessarily slowing the advance of science, that would further add to the (already very large) burden of misfortunes that taxonomists have to bear these days.
One can definitely lectotypify names, espcially when there is complexity in the correct application of the names, but I do not like those who move from families to families in the name of 'taxonomic revision' for simply choosing lectotypes from two or more syntypes. Designating such lectotypes is just of academic interest and not at all of vital taxonomic importance.
Dear @Subir this is what I actually wanted to point out. Thank you very much. Such designations are often having the purpose of advancement of career rather than taxonomic interest.
I personally know Jaideep Mazumdar and if one can publish such papers accepting his work as a role model, that would be great. His each and every paper contributes sometime for the advancement of plant taxonomy.
I do not think that authors who typify hundreds of names from different families can precisely indentify the species later on.
Thanks Rafael for your posting.
Most of the Lectotypification and new combinations made without actually critically studying the specimens (or merely seeing images with often no possibility of examining key characters) particularly by so called 'Lectotype hunters' or 'new combination hunters' is MOST UNETHICAL. But is there a way to tag them as "Opportunist Taxonomist" because there actions may sometime accidentally turn out to be right/correct. Right experts assessing these "Opportunist Taxonomist" in their career advancements should rattle them.
We all should condemn them.
Such workers are usually 'table taxonomists'. Poor fellows, hardly go to the explorations and survive on this type of publications.
BUT, good taxonomic studies require long duration works with limited opportunity to publish the results. In current scenario where 'citations', 'impact factor' and number of publications decide the careers, workers are inclined to such publication.
Sir, your question is interesting and definitely worthy for new Botanists working in the field of plant nomenclature. Yes, hunters (combination/lectotype/type) should be very careful while entering in the field of plant nomenclature. After detailed study on chosen topic (not in hurry burry) and taking experts’ advices/helps/opinions, they can submit their article/s for publication. In this process, they will learn a lot of things. Day by day, they will learn new things and may become good workers in future, because nobody is master in any field from birth, only hard work, guidance from teachers/seniors/gurus/… and in due course anybody can become expert, just like present experts. Present experts also become experienced by this process only.
Proper guidance is needed for younger Botanists (even some old workers), because for fast publication and career advancements they are sending their articles in unreputed journals. Nowadays, many new Journals (online/offline) are emerging and I have seen many poor articles in these journals on nomenclature. Articles are poor because of poor reviewing or published without reviewing. Better to send nomenclatural articles after taking experts helps, in good international/national journals (having impact factor or good reputation), because these journals were publishing article after thorough review process. In broader sense, here younger Botanists mean who are new in nomenclature field.
Today just like combination/lectotype hunters, new species hunters are also emerging, may be for career advancements, without detailed ecological study, intermediate and variable forms or by mistake, many new species are arising. But no problem, later studies by someone can correct/solve the status of these arising new species. Taxonomy is like ocean, everyday new things are coming and even the status of taxon/taxa is/are changing/reverting after molecular study.
However, rules (articles and recommendations) of ICN are with us, any mistake in nomenclature can be corrected, as required. Even in ICN, some changes are going on in every congress.
I have also seen the so called “table taxonomists” not only in lectotype/combination hunting, even in revision/monographic hunting and checklist preparation etc., without detailed study in natural habitat, study based merely on herbarium collections, they published many articles (later on they cannot identify the plant specimens or in live), may be unfruitful to others.
In science, especially plant systematic from time to time addition, assessment, correction, amendment, revision, discovery, rediscovery, modification …. is ongoing process.
I believe that, it is not correct to demoralise new workers or poor workers or so called hunters/table taxonomists/ opportunist taxonomist, because nobody is masters as per my opinion to decide who is what - hunters/table taxonomists/ opportunist taxonomist. Mistake or some time poor results are seen, that can be corrected later on. Something is better than nothing, in olden days workers are not bothered about typification, at least today new workers are doing something. Who are expert in this fields, it is their moral duty to guide/teach the younger future Botanists. From wrong things also we can learn many new things and ideas.
Thanks to all for healthy discussion, sorry, if my opinion is wrong in some prospective.
Some workers have the habit of affixing determinavit slips without doing taxonomic revision just for becoming famous by name. This is not all a good practice. Similarly I believe that one should lectotypifify names only if one has a sufficient experience in the taxonomic group concerned.
Yes Subir Daa, without the experience/knowledge in the concerned taxonomic group nobody can do any kind of typification/nomenclatural work. It depends upon the individual, that, at up to what depth, he has the knowledge on the concerned taxonomic group. How I/We can judge the experience/knowledge of others. Only by going deeply into the publication of any person we can know the quality and can get an idea that how much he and she having the knowledge.
By affixing determinant slips nobody can become famous, as per my knowledge. Revision... re-revision is never ending process, nobody is so perfect that he can do/cover all so perfectly in one revision. We can see many revision on the same group/taxa/taxon.... from the long back time of the establishment of that group/taxa/taxon.... and every time we will find advancement (up to what extent/percentage, it depends on person to person) in each work.
Suppose, I/We have some (some because nobody is master) experience in one/any group/taxa/taxon.... and I/We want to do some work on that, so I/We will go through the earlier works and collections on that group and after that, from my/our knowledge I/We can find, that I/We can do something on that group for betterment (addition, assessment, correction, amendment, revision, discovery, rediscovery, modification, nomenclature work......) or not. Then from best of my/our knowledge and experience I/We will put my/our work in the form of article/book... in part or single in front of publisher. Then editorial board will decide to accept or reject that work. I have never seen any article/book..... which is totally perfect in all respect, their is always a way for further work on improvement, addition or betterment (up to what extent/percentage, it depends on person to person). This is ongoing and never ending process, like wise only day my day science/any subject is improving and flourishing, just like nature evolution.
In Science, especially plant systematics/nomenclature (not so familiar subject nowadays for younger generation)… we should avoid criticism on works of others, if we realize any correction/improvement… is/are needed on work/s of earlier/others, then we can add our knowledge to the knowledge of earlier/others by going through further publication.
Here also we are not criticizing any hunter group/s. I can say it’s only a healthy discussion and in any subject of Science, discussion is always important part……..
I agree with you that no one can be perfect. This is universally applicable to all but one should at least try to be perfect.
I have seen det. slips affixed by de Wit on the herbarium sheets of Bauhinia and allied genera in many foreign herbaria and a few misidentifications too but 99.99% were correct.
Sunil Tr****** of CDRI was studying the Zingibeaceae of N E India. I became familier with him during my visit to CDRI. When he visited CAL, I requested him not to affix det. slips because was not revising the family in N E India. He, however, annotated all the relevant specimens he studied at CAL. Later it was pointed out by some workers that many of them are erroneous.
Here lies the difference between quick taxonomic studies and revision.
Another example of quick taxonomic study. Mushrooming papers published on lectotypification mostly deal with names of taxa endemic to India. The authors say while revising the family/genus...... etc, etc. My logic is, then where are the names of other Indian taxa which are not endemic to India gone? This is simply because of the fact that they have not gone through the tedious and time consuming effort of searching out all the literature and carrying out in depth taxonomic studies. Instead they superficially picked up the names of the endemic taxa because there are less chances that the names have already been lectotypified. I wonder how many families/genera one can revise within a short time period!
However, publications reflect that they are experts of many a families and genera.
It seems to me that it is more important to solve complicated problems on typifications and discuss about the existing typifications than to simply select a lecto from two or more syntypes.
There is no need to underestimate the capabilities of the Botanists of the previous century and mention in publication: "I realized that 'they' presented a revision of 'xxx' but did not designate lectotypes for the names.... and therefore lectotypes are designated here for xxx names in xxx species of the genus". Whether they had access to the all sets of the type specimens required for designating a lectotype? The answer is "no".
It is well known that with the opening of the doors of most of the leading herbaria with digital access to their holdings, it is now easy to pinpoint and locate most of the duplicates/syntypes required for lectotypification which was a dream in the previous century. The then Botanists had access to the IDC microfiche at the most in addition to the meagre loan specimens. When Charlie Jarvis undertook the project on the Linnaean types, he openly invited all to designate lectotypes online and that event probably initiated the beginning of a new era of online designation of lectotypes.
There is also no need to underestimate the "herbarium botanists" on the presumption that having no field experience they were/are publishing monographs/revisions merely based on herbarium collections and that they can not identify the plant specimens later or in live condition and/or they were/are publishing incorrect articles based on herbarium materials. In this context I would like to mention that I have had the opportunity of intimate interaction with a "Herbarium/Table Botanist", the Late H. K. Airy Shaw, the then Bentham Moxon Botanist in Kew. Without visiting field and "merely on the basis of studying herbarium collections" he established a sound base of the Malesian and other Asiatic Euphorbiaceae. He was equally capable of identifying any specimen or photograph in Euphorbiaceae sent to him and he was able give a sound judgement and apt taxonomic opinion on the same. He was never jumping into another group to point out mistake of a published work and giving statement that he came across the publication while studying "that group". In fact, he was politely refusing to comment on specimens from any other group not studied by him!
What is being practised by some expert "field Botanists" today?
Thank you.
I learn through my mistakes and always try to convey my mistake to others so that they also take care of these mistakes.
Initially I too used to ‘Lectotypify species’. Dr. Nicolson repeated pointed out my error and now I ‘lectotypify names’.
Even Dr J. McNeill can sometimes be wrong.
Just see the mail pasted below:
From: John McNeill To: 'Subir Bandyopadhyay' Cc: David Middleton Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 8:35 PM Subject: My review of your MS on Phanera macrostachya
Dear Dr Bandyopadhyay:
I owe you a sincere apology for my carelessness in reviewing your MS, "Lectotypification of Phanera macrostachya Benth. (Leguminosae: Caesalpinioideae)" submitted to the Edinburgh Journal of Botany.
You are perfectly correct that because Phanera macrostachya Benth. is validated solely by reference to the description in Roxburgh’s Flora Indica (1832), the name must be lectotypified by an element selected from the context of Roxburgh’s description of Bauhinia scandens.
My only excuse – and not a very good one – is that I started my review on 5 May reading the first few paragraphs and making what became Comments JM2 and JM3 and then had to put the paper aside for a few days. When I came back to it on 10 May (the date of the other Comments), I had completely forgotten that Bentham’s name was validates solely by reference to Roxburgh’s description and concentrated instead on your incorrect – and as it turns out irrelevant – argument that the Larsens had not cited a single specimen.
Again my apologies.
Best wishes
John McNeill
His confession just increased my deep respect towards him because I have learned many a things from him.
Our paper in Current Science is not to demoralise others. One should accept it as a helpful write-up but I cannot accept everything.
Dead bodies tell tales [Forensic science].
I review many a MSS on typification which I receive from Indian and foreign journals as well.
Many of these have grave mistakes. I do not mind. I try to improve the MSS as much as I can.
However, a few MSS told tales [These are, however, not dead bodies]. I have seen suppression of earlier publications and even manipulation in the label of the holotype. I have seen falsification of data presentation to suit the acceptance for publication in a certain journal. I have also seen addition and deletion of author names in a MS submitted and resubmitted to different journals in more or less the same form. What I have post here is only the lip of the iceberg!
As a reviewer, I am now used to the language: "While working on ..... Group for the ..... Project, I came across the publication of ..... I realized that they did not designate lectotypes for the names treated in their revision. Hence lectotypes are designated for .... names in the genus.....". After a few months the same researcher picks up another group and designates lectotypes using same language! An this trend is continued by the same worker and he takes up endemic species! However, I never found that the author finalizing his/her work and presenting a comprehensive revision of a single group mentioned by him. Why? Simply because he has by that time taken up another group "while working on ... Group I realized that lectotypification is required....."
Seeing this trend only I asked the present question. However, the hunting will continue for quick fame and advancement of career and the proponent will put forward many explanations and excuses for the same and keep on criticizing earlier workers for mistakes. Only they will have no patience and to bring out a comprehensive revised treatment and become a real expert on the group.
This is a infectious disease among taxonomists of present day, further it is the shortest way to publish paper in hing impact factor journal without doing proper field survey, taxonomic work or revision work.
I totally agreed with views and opinions of all, on this question. Here what I want to say is – Our views/opinions or proposals/suggestions/recommendations for others will be correct, but we cannot impose our views/opinions or proposals/suggestions/recommendations in such a way/manner to young Botanists (even some old workers who did not done typification/nomenclature work earlier, now only enter in this field), that they may feel - we are demoralising/criticizing/suppressing or demarcating boundary for them, to enter in field of typification/nomenclature. They should not feel anything like generation gap.
Earlier and recently also, some young research fellow of Plant taxonomy came to me and asked – Dear Rajeev/Singh…./Sir, I/we is/are doing work on floristic studies of xxxxx protected area/taluka/district/state/……., can we go for typification/s of taxon/taxa ?. My answer is always positive, I say - yes, only the thing is that, first you learn the concerned taxon/taxa/group deeply…… in field, from earlier publications, earlier collections etc…., understand it, then take experts advices…. etc. and finally when you satisfies that you can understand the concerned taxon/taxa/group, then only go for publication in good journal (editor/s of good journals will also refine the manuscript during reviewing process). After that, again one more question from them….…, but we are not revising the concerned taxon/taxa/group, then also we can do typification/nomenclature work ?. Again my answer is same ….. yes, when you will learn the concerned taxon/taxa/group found in your area deeply with the help of all previous works and present sources, your work outcome will be like revision only on the concerned taxon/taxa/group, though your topic is floristic study of xxxxx…… Further, I explained them with one example, person/s who is/are describing the new species from any area, how they find it is new to science, how they come to conclusion that it comes under xxxxx genera, closely allied to one or more species….. by studying only, likewise you also have to learn the concerned taxon/taxa/group deeply, then only you will find typification/nomenclature work is needed or not.
I have seen many articles in present decade, especially after 2010 on typification/nomenclature work of many workers on taxon/taxa/group in good journals from every part of globe and I find that, as per ICN, upto 99 percent - are correct (though these articles are only on typification and nomenclature only, not like big revision article or like monograph). I never seen any article in the good journals, for which, I can say the typification/s is/are accidently correct. Only in few cases, the typification is (accidently) not valid as per ICN or need further work on that. Some articles on revision came to me for reviewing, when I find that revision or revision like works (in floras) already done on that topic very nicely by earlier worker/s, except nomenclature/typification or few more thing, then I suggested to reduce the length of the article to author/s by giving reference/s to earlier works and provide only the new things which was not found/mentioned/cited in earlier works. The new workers accepted my suggestion. I followed this pattern because the same thing happens to me earlier, and at that time, I accepted the suggestions of reviewers of my article/s because they are correct.
I done typification on genus Smithia Aiton, I started work on this genus when I joined Pune (2005-2011) circle, then Allahabad (2012-15), presently Coimbatore after 2015, my work was in progress and I was about at end of revision, but in 2017 one manuscript from Taiwania journal came to me for reviewing, I find that the work was OK and can be published after revision, and suggested many corrections as one of the reviewer. Later article published and about 80% of my suggestions were included in article. Then, I stop my work on this topic after my 2 publications only. Anybody can do work on any topic, who will get priority it depends on circumstances, I can’t say don’t do work on this topic, because I am also doing work on the same, It’s my moral duty to support other worker who completed work earlier. On other topic also I done typification, but no need to do comprehensive revision (in hurry burry) because everything is available in earlier works except what I done, and who knows about future ? only I, comprehensive revision may come in series.
I take very long time to complete any research topic because I always put hand in few topic at one time. Also in completing my Phd. work on Floristic diversity of Valmiki Tiger Reserve I taken nearly 16 years, 2 times my registration expired, I can submit within 5 years also, but every time I found some more is needed, at last nearly 941 wild species (cultivated extra) were reported. Finally, I submitted my thesis, much appreciated by foreign and Indian reviewers. In comments they written your work is very lengthy, it is like revision because you covered all the aspects of taxonomy, nomenclature, etc. of all the taxa included in your thesis but your title is Floristic diversity, why ? and the same question was also asked by examiner during my viva after reading the comments of reviewers, but still I think some more can be added. I can’t aspect same kind of path, hard work etc. should also be followed by others. I have done what I want to do as per my knowledge and experience, others will do as per their choice, ability, knowledge, etc.
Present workers never underestimate the capabilities of the Botanists of the previous century, only they are adding something on nomenclature/typification or other things to previous works. The reason for this addition is very clear – in olden days because of no online facilities like these days, less resources, limitation, etc. some aspects were not included in their works. So, now added, if younger people done their work as per rule correctly (except accidently wrong in some cases) then what is wrong…. everything is OK……
I think, as per ICN, there is no article which says that typification can be done only in revisionary or monographic work.
Moreover, Recommendation 9A.2. says “Designation of a lectotype should be undertaken only in the light of an understanding of the group concerned. In choosing a lectotype, all aspects of the protologue should be considered as a basic guide. Mechanical methods, such as the automatic selection of the first element cited or of a specimen collected by the person after whom a species is named, should be avoided as unscientific and leading to possible future confusion and further change”.
Here an understanding of the group concerned doesn’t means ‘only in revisionary or monographic work’. For me, simple meaning of the sentence - “Understanding of the group concerned” is - knowledge in the concerned group. As earlier what I say, again same - “without the experience/knowledge in the concerned group, nobody can do any kind of typification/nomenclatural work. It depends upon the individual, that, at up to what depth, he has the knowledge on the concerned taxonomic group. How we can judge the experience/knowledge of others. Only by going deeply into the publication of any person we can know the quality and can get an idea that how much he and she having the experience/knowledge”. If some body has not so deep knowledge or understanding of the group concerned and its typification/nomenclature work after publication goes wrong, then later more knowledgeable/experienced worker will correct it.
Every body has freedom to do whatever they want to do as per rule of ICN, in the field of Plant taxonomy and we should not use any words/sentence, which look like criticism for other works directly or indirectly, especially young people. All doors of our subject is open for all. Hunting in any fields needs experience, what is the need and why some people are targeting someone, is something is there in between them ? ……….. that can be checked by quality of publication of both at present and in future also……………….
I think healthy discussion is also never ending process…………
Once again thanks to all for providing their views on this question and once more time I am sorry, if I may wrong in some aspects.
Dear Tapas Sir and Subir Daa,
Now I understand why this present question came ......and for whom and why. I know that person very closely, he is not famous, no advancement in his career from many years back.
I know him very well, he will not do anything for fame and advancement in his career, whatever he is doing, is only a (very very) small contribution to the field of Plant Taxonomy, just like a drop in ocean. If he has done any wrong contribution to plant taxonomy, you people are more experienced, correct that mistake by further contribution. By the way nobody can become famous only by Lectotype hunting.
Sir and Daa, no need to target that poor guy. He always listen respectful words for both of you from him. Is there any problem between you and that guy or he has done any mistake knowingly or unknowingly, which hurt you. Please tell me I will convey that mistake to him.
This is researchgate, a platform for healthy scientific discussion, not for targeting a poor guy or any group and also what is the need to target anybody on this platform....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Thanks
In my case there is no question of generation gap. People of all ages receive help from me, from retired persons to preservative assistants including the research scholars and I always feel happy to help them. There can’t be any exception. I am thankful to them because I too learn something new while answering their queries. I do not know everything in the Code. May be in my opinion 10%. Many a times I take help of Dr. Gandhi if I cannot solve the problem confidently. Neither I become annoyed if someone works in my field. Ask Dr. Franklin Benjamin of MH. I do not run after looking at the flaws in typifications published for names in groups other than mine but definitely not so in case of my own group.
‘Understanding of the group’ as given in the Code is a relative term. Someone can take 6-7 years to properly revise a group of c. 100 spp., others can take just a year or two.
Normally one should not revise a plant group if anyone is revising (in a true sense) because it is a mere wastage of time, energy and money.
I do not encourage to typify names who carry out floristic studies exclusively. They too can excel in their own field of work and immensely help other by identifying plant. For example Arvind Singh of RG.
No question of targeting anyone. Whatever I expressed is for the sake of good taxonomic practice. Anyway I am also apologizing if anyone is hurt.
That’s it.
Thanks Subir Daa, I know you very well and your helping nature, even I have taken help from you, every times you help me, I learnt a lot from your humbleness and helping nature. Tapas Sir also help me a lot when I was in Pune circle. I learn a lot from both of you and others also. Needs your help in future also, as we are working in same field.
Again thanks from bottom of my heart.
@Rajeev Kumar Singh, I can well understand your frustration, a I faced the same during my service period. In spite of all constraints I never stopped with academic pursuits.
I know you very well personally as well as through your publications. My question does not relate you as if you see my original question you will find that the researchers are designating lectotypes at random for "personal benefits" such as "advancement of career". I feel pain when I find that such a researcher presuming that while describing the species, "Gamble designated first-step lectotype" and therefore a "second-step" lectotype is being designated here and such articles are getting published in reputed journals and the authors are getting benefits of advancement of career.
Mistake is inevitable, as pointed out by @Subir but one should consult experts as pointed out by @Subir and @Rajeeb.
It is equally frustrating that random lectotypification is going on with a "purpose" but such authors never come forward by presenting a consolidated account of the particular group of plants. No one seems to be interested in bringing out publications which will eventually lead on to the publication of our National Flora.
My question is intended for pointing out the need of good revisions but in case this has hurt your sentiments, I tender sincere apologies.
Sir, I am sorry, you are my senior, I learn many things from you and need your blessing and guidance always.
I have an idea. When you publish any typification, sometimes people can't see that article. And we don't know which typifications are correct. So, we need typification database of world such as Linnean Typification Project website (lectotypification, epitypification, neotypification).
Dear Serdar,
Its a good idea. Sometimes we get such information from IPNI.
Dear Subir,
yes we get some info from ipni. We see synonyms, basionym, isonym, locations but I haven't seen typification info yet in IPNI. We haven't seen it has chosen by who? When is choosen it? Is the typification valid? If you made two different typifications, which is valid? But the problem is, who's going to research all typification articles. New typifications must be reported to this database by authors. Of course, a website should be made firstly.
Search the name Bauhinia monandra Kurz in IPNI
Click on the first one……..(GCI)
Caesalpiniaceae Bauhinia monandra Kurz -- J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, Pt. 2, Nat. Hist. 42(2): 73. 1873 (GCI)
See remarks:
Remarks: Bandyopadhyay (in Phytotaxa 261(3): 295–297. 2016), who works at CAL, did not find the type specimen (“p. 295: Despite a thorough search I could not locate the type specimen at CAL”). Alternatively, he designated the following as the LT.: Burma, Soeh dhoh, D. Brandis 1187 (HBG 520313)
Caesalpiniaceae Bauhinia monandra Kurz -- Journal of the Asiatic Society Bengal 42(2) 1873 (APNI)
Leguminosae Bauhinia monandra Kurz -- J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, Pt. 2, Nat. Hist. 42(2): 73. 1873 (IK)
I have occasionally seen such kind of information for other names too.
It is indeed very difficult to make out which typification is correct. A person engaged in revision of particular groups can only ascertain the correct typification.
However, it would be of great help if there can be any database enumerating the typification(s) of name(s).
it is nice but not enough. There are a lot of typifications all around of world. Sometimes for a taxon is selected two or three times. Information on all of these should be given and, if necessary, the herbarium photographs of the selected samples. For example: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/linnaean-typification/search/detail.dsml?ID=401700&listPageURL=list%2edsml%3fVarqtype%3dstarts%2bwith%26CVarqtype%3dstarts%2bwith%26CGenusqtype%3dstarts%2bwith%26CSpeciesqtype%3dstarts%2bwith%26Species%3dbiloba%26sort%3dGenus%252cSpecies%26Speciesqtype%3dstarts%2bwith%26Genus%3dGinkgo%26Genusqtype%3dstarts%2bwith%26CSspqtype%3dstarts%2bwith
The issue of Lectotype Hunters is arguably a bit serious. A lot of species names still require lectotypification but as raised by others the selection of the type specimen needs to be based on comprehensive understanding of the taxonomy history and the specimens used by the author. Thus, selection by non-taxon expert (meaning colleagues that did not study carefully a particular taxa) may create more problems than solving the main issue, clarification of the meaning of a taxon name. In my opinion, the damage can be serious because it would arguably require to set up a process of rejection of Lectotypes.
To avoid this, we may want to consider the need to establish more project studying the typification of major contributors to plant taxonomy similar to the outstanding Linnean Type Project. For example, it would be of great value to have a project focusing on the types of Blume corresponding to his important work on the Flora of Java.
I too agree.
Jarvis has taken the help of specialists for typifying the names. Noltie could have selected lectotypes of many Wight's names but instead of do so he left the typifications to the specialists.
I fully support their viewpoint.
@Mayur Nandikar is involved in sorting out names based on Dalzell's collections. Such efforts are always most welcome. Similar projects with Sulpiz Kurz, Gamble and so on highly desirable.
Recently one author convluded that Gamble, while describing the species, designated a first-step lectotype and therefore he designated a second-step lectorype.
If you wish to read this paper, please write me personally.
Lectotypification syndrome has taken most Indian taxonomist to make easy publications without understanding the taxon in question. This I consider most unethical practice by so called taxonomists. It should be left to those carrying out taxonomic revisions. The Pandora box was opened with access to virtual herbaria and online publications. Little do they understand the damage caused by these 'LECTOTYPIFICATION SYNDROMISTS' but I do not rule out the possibility they accidentally selecting the correct lectotype. I personally feel the typification project like Gamble, Kurz, Prain, King, etc should not be taken in the line of Linnaean project which was done with a different purpose and was most essential in solving may identity and nomenclatural problems being the foundation work for taxonomists throughout the world. In case of all others it is best done by taxon specialists and not by generalists who have limited knowledge of the taxon and have only in tension of making a publication.
@Sanjappa Sir,
Learning is a continuous process. I can always consult an expert if I do not have the solution.
Taps
Every one thinks like you we will not have any problem.
I feel sorry when I find that senior Scientists are designating "Isolectotypes".
@Mayur, the authors designated a lectotype, at the same time, also designated isolectotype for the name. Better to arrange more and more nomenclature course to prevent such degradation even at senior level.
Person who is doing a revision of the genus and who has a good knowledge of the group he can involve in lectotypification and other nomenclature problems.
Also he has a knowledge of nomenclature.
The latest trend in lectotypification of plant names is that the authors are now inflating the paper dealing with a simple lectotypification by adding history of the genus and infrageneric classification, if available and some of the journal are publishing them without critical review. The trend of random lectotypifications based on floristic studies without in depth knowledge in a group (acquired through revisions) is gaining momentum. The resultant superfluous designations are increasing day by day. Two such superfluous designations can be seen in the July 2021 issue of Nelumbo and December 2021 issue of Pleione.
A colleague has rightly pointed out: "We are now suffering from lectotype fever"
The height is that Remote Sensing Scientists are now also selecting lectotypes after writing Floras.
And we should add Lectotype hunters and Hunters of gaps in the code and nomenclatural priorizations! There are people doing entire carreers and academic Curricula with this in a quite clever (in the worst sense of the term) way! Only typifications that implies deeper studies, like phylogenomics of groups or taxonomic monographies should be allowed to do so, when proven past and recent work on the different genus.
Well, highlighting gaps and dark areas in the Code are always welcome for improvement and priorities should also be addressed but haphazard lectotypifications should be avoided. I have at least ten examples from 2021 in hand wherein lectotypes were selected superfluously or not based on original materials.
Tapas Chakrabarty That is a problem of the review process! Not the authors!
How about founding a journal called "Rapid lectotypification" or "Quick´n´dirty lectotypification". And then automatically forward all standalone-lectotypfication manuscripts to this journal and publish them without any context and review leaving them in their entirety to oblivion and without any merit and impact. The hunters would quickly loose interest in their easy prey, eventually leave science since substantial taxonomy would require more knowledge and dedication (and time!) and both funding and positions would be available to people with passion and patience instead of dazzlers craving for recognition.