Unfortunately, there is not always a better place where to keep safely reference collections than in our personal labs. IUCN is a recomendation, not an obligatory compliance rule.

yes, this is still not entirely uncommon with insects, the more spectacular, the more common (esp. Lepidoptera). This more or less because the depository "is only recommendation". However, most collectors have a sense to make an agreement with an institute or other that their primary types will eventually be deposited there and that the specimens can, e.g. be borrowed through such. Unfortunately some collectors are still like philatelists, and a red label 'increases the value' of their collection. Understandably I am quite deeply against all that. But, I to some extent also understand these people; they may have been collecting in life-threatening conditions in most weirdo places in the World, and having found something unique it is not that easy to part with them. Prohibition of the formal descriptions of species without explicit mention of a public institute for the depository in scientific journals may also cause discouraging effects: these people may be estranged from the science community, and there are always journals accepting anything (and they can be veery obscure). And, often private collections are under good care (at least until the collector approaches or faces the end of his/her days). These days, unfortunately, a collection being public does not necessarily mean any better care, but in dwindling resources something closer to total neglect (i.e. do not meet anymore 72F.2). So, I see different facets on this issue even if myself try to persuade those people I know to always donate holotypes collected by them to one or another public institute that seems to have fairly secure future.

I am absolutely agree as public institutions not always take care of the important value of a reference collection. We know how crisis is cutting back funds in our countries, how some important collections in Europe are sadly lost after war, and so on. On the other hand, type material also can dissapear with the expert as relatives do not necessarily understand the importance of their collection. Unfortunately, we have examples for too many publications.

Unfortunately, there are only recommendations. Many amateur entomologists keep the primary types in their private collections or sell them to other private collectors. It's quite usual thing among Coleoptera and Lepidoptera collectors. There is no solid regulation to prevent anybody to keep the primary types in private collections or use them for commercial purposes. But I agree with Lauri that private collections frequently under a better care than some public ones.

I have been working as the collection manger of the paleontological collection of the department of Geosciences of Freie Universität Berlin.

I know tht we had serveral fossil specimen featured in papers some of them type material. But the policy of me and my predecessors for the last 15 years or so was to give most material featured in pubications and all type specimen to to museums (mostly the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin). But occasionally someone contacts us and asks for acess to type specimen that are no longer part of our collection. (Last case was material of Haldanodon from Guimarota. The material was once in our collection but was given to Prof. Dr. Miguel Ramalho of the Museu Geológico in Lisbon). So I guess that recommendation 72F.4 of the ICZN (publish lists of name-bearing types in its possession or custody) should be taken seriously to avoid such confusion about the housing of type material.

Yes, it still takes place. In Scandinavian countries there are proportonately quite a few collectors and some of them feel they should have the types until they pass away. I described an aleocharinespecies (Philhygra mahleri) in the 1990s that ended up in the collector´s private collection with the idea that it will be given to he Copenhagen museum when he psses away. So it went. As electronic publishing becomes easier, this trend certainly will keep alaive. I guess the only reason it is not mandatory to deposit the holotypes in a public institute is the legal definition of a public institution.

There is an interesting example from West Australia, the Buprestidae collection of Carnaby. Once collecting these privately was banned, he got himself a museum of his own. After all, the status is given by politically administrated bodies.

Besides, there is another way to circumvent this. You can base a species on syntypes.

On the other hand, I do not think this is such big a problem.

s.

Jyrki Muona

Thanks for the responses to date. In Australia, almost all types described recently (say last 30-40 years) have ended up in Museums, University and other public collections, which is apparently not always the case in many countries when I look at the answers so far. In fact, throughout Australia, insects collected by permit from National Parks, etc., MUST be deposited in the relevant Australian State or Territory or National insect collection. Similar regulations apply in, for example, New Caledonia, where types are required to be deposited in Paris Museum.

One of the other reasons I posted this response is that in the groups I work with, a reasonable proportion of holotypes are lost, quite a few of these because they were at one point in private collections. These collections are not always safe into the future (e.g.disposed of when the collector dies, sold to another collector in another country), but I suggest that public collections should in general be the safest place to deposit types even taking into account the vagaries of disasters, war, etc.

Hi John

We recently had an issue where a beetle specimen collected in/near a QLD National Park by an overseas collector was then properly described in a European Museum Journal and the holotype deposited in the private collection of the researcher. Following discussions there has been agreement that the Holotype will be returned to Australia - but it has not arrived yet.

Cheers Chris

I think Private collections are not a good place for preserving Holotype. As far as i know Prof. J. S. Bhatti (thrips expert) from India (Delhi) has kept several type materilas in his private collection.

In Malacology (mollusks) it is good tradition to deposit holotypes in a museum, and this is nearly always the daily practice. Most journals only accept papers with new species descriptions only when the holotype is/will be deposited in a museum, which is a good base to accept papers for publication in my view. I only know of one (Italian) mollusk magazine which allows that the holotype stays in the authors collection. For paratypes it is different, often several are sent to different musea, but also many paratypes stay in the authors collections. In my view the role of editors (and reviewers) of serious magazines is not trivial, they should look carefully at the types of new species and the collections they are deposited.

Serious scientfic work includes taking care for type specimens and its "eternal" safety and universal access, so a deposition in a musuem collection should be mandatory. The only temporary (!) excuse for "private researchers" may be that a deposition has been pre-arranged but personal transportation to the museum is delayed.

The International scientific articles in which new species are described  always indicate the desposition of the type material, it does not matter if is in a public or private collection. Is important to do a good description with illustrations that permit other researchers study the material.

I think it is fair to take into account the "real" world. First, there are public museums that simply do not lend material, for various reasons. Some, like Dehra Dun, appear not to have the staff. Others, unnamed here, close for years because of legal reasons. Some museums do not send material unless the curator happens to appreciate the person asking. In US, a famous pselaphid researcher, an amateur, donated his collection to a major institution and then could not borrow his own types because he was not "a professional"! As to editors, a serious editor working for a serious journal cannot insist on things that are not required by the ICZN. I would be happy if editors cared to insist on the rules of nomenclature. Frequently they do not even know them well enough.

Privately kept types are not really the big problem in taxonomy. That said, if the country in question has laws insisting on something else, of course they have to be followed. I would not dream to describe a species from Australia without depositing the holotype to an Australian institution.

I agree with Lauri and Mark to a high degree. I have been cheking the Internet for insect dealers, and I can say that at least paratypes of Coleoptera and Lepidoptera are offered some times. I could not say about holotypes...

Yes, it till happens, but it's much rarer than it used to be.

Some comments: valuable private collections, which contain types or paratypes, are usually left to a museum when the author is finished with them or dies.

Hi Valter.

I am happy for you to post to the F/B group with perhaps a link to researchgate?

Cheers, John

As far as I know, the practice of privately ownership of type specimens still happens much in malacology / conchology. Some authors refer to their own private museum, as if that would make a difference. The fate of such collections is very uncertain. No one knows if such private collections will ever move to public museums, and if that happens this may be untraceable for somebody trying to locate the specimens. Another matter is that university collections may also cease to exist if their taxonomic research comes to an end. Universities do not like to spend manpower and space on the maintenance of  research collections. If nobody is responsible anymore, their collections may also become inaccesible or lost. 

In Australian Universities there are literally hundreds of collections spanning everything from geology to insects, Chinese porcelain to scientific instruments. Many are poorly curated (if at all) and their ultimate fate is perhaps in doubt.

A few years ago, there was an extensive survey of "Cinderella Collections" (i.e. University-based collections). For details and recommendations a good starting point can be found at http://www.collectionsaustralia.net/sector_info_item/22

A great example of what can and perhaps should happen when a university-based collection is in trouble, is that of the University of Queensland Insect Collection that was transferred to the Queensland Museum. This was a planned transfer and has been immensely successful.

Thank-you John for that lovely comment. The physical transfer of UQIC to QM was organised and completed in about 6 months, and the scientific work is ongoing and constant, at the same time as we have decreased staff working on the collection. Thanks to Susan Wright (Collection Manager) and Karin Koch (Databaser and Research Assistant) and a large team of volunteers, honoraries, and visiting scientists - loans have been found and returned, holotypes found and registered, and parts of the collection have the taxonomy updated, specimens databased and amalgamated with the QM state collection. All at the same time as caring for, and increasing, the existing QM collection. (And taking on more donations!!!)

I am working with numerous private fossil collectors. They are usually happy to give their specimens to official museum collections. Yet, I clearly must say that some private collections are better organised than some museum collections. I had several cases in which I tried to find specimens in Museum collections, but they were considered lost. So I am not sure if deposition in a Musem collection is automatically more safe than in a private one.

... or the curator does not want to collaborate due to a conflict of interest...or...

The biggest problem is what happens when the researcher in charge of this material gets retired, dies, and nobody takes care of it. We should be conscious that we should  take care of this problem once our retirement arrives and to leave clear instructions about how to handle the material in the future. Once again, Responsibility should be our R.

Butterfly paratype currently for sale.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/MORPHO-SULKOWSKYI-ZACHI-PARATYPE-FROM-DEP-SAN-MARTIN-NORTH-PERU-/371113009393?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item56680f20f1

I have to say that I think Mr. Jennnings' commercially inspired communication is an abuse of Research Gate and should not have been published. Any one with a real taxonomic need for a type of this species would be better advised to borrow the holotype from wherever it is deposited. 

Providing the link is meant to follow up previous posts which indicate that type material from (private) collections is on sale! I am sorry if you think this is an abuse of Research Gate, and suggest you read carefully the thread of the question which I originally posted: "Are holotypes still being deposited in private collections or in collections that do not meet ICZN recommendations? Does anyone have recent examples?" Whilst I acknowledge this is a link to an advertisement it has absolutely no link to me whatsoever, and was meant to show that type material is not necessarily safe in private collections.

Sorry, John, I assumed it was you who was the vendor. Please excuse. At least it wasnt the holotype on sale, a small mercy. 

Yes, it happens in some cases of fossil invertebrates, few online publication admits that the holotype be housed in private collection (ammonites, for instance).

Beyond the exceptions where in some cases,  private collections are better arranged and safe than in some Museums, and also beyond of the local laws in some countries, the best place to deposit holotypes are the museums.

Regarding invertebrate fossils, one of the major source of new taxa are the fossil collectors.

They are in many cases very disposed to collaborate with the experts and donate the samples to the Institutions, but not always. So, examples like the case of those online publications,  encourage them to keep for themselves the new taxa, obscuring, thus, the future of the samples.

In any case, the publication of the paper depends, mostly, of the Editor.

Perhaps is better to apply the orthodoxy, regarding the ICZN Recommendations, that to accept the fact that the samples they be stored in private collections, in order to publish at any cost.

Moreover, those collectors or donors, should be well received by the authors or curators and they should perceiving a little bit of grateful and kindness (not necessarily a red carpet... but be cited in the aknowledgements or dedications of a new species,or something like this), and how important that is the fact of donation, and that is not always the case.

Just my thought.

Dear All Doctors, This problem is important for comparing new meterial found in the field with specimens which are deposited in an agreed Museum. In South of France so as probably other regions of my country, some very skill Entomologists in taxonomy of one precise group of Coleoptera or ... (Who are not Scientifics. But only Amateurs who have any idea of faunisiticsal importance in new  biological traits of minute insects (for which they konw very well sites and the villagse names). Generally it is the case for minute insects which remain without knowledge or badly known biological traitsl.It remain ih France Amateurs who do'nt deposit the unique specimen or at least one (of the two or more specimens that they collected in the field) in a museum. They ward the insect in they own collection after publishing one paper or one small note in one local French review. My behaviour when collecting and identifying at species level one poorly known species of Hymenoptera, Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, Neuroptera, or Orthopteroids, iis to send at least one specimen (and generally all of them) to the "Conservateur" of a French Museum. Till to-day at the nearest of my home: Museum Municipal de Nice (Nice  is one of the crowded French town). Sincerely yours. André Panis

While our administrations do not invest in hiring high qualified taxonomists or in the conservation of reference collections, many experts will continue keeping their reference specimens in their private collections. The biggest problem I see is the lack of counseling and support to families after the death of a specialist, such coleciones to donate to museums and other reference centers. I come from on a workshop on forensics and we are really worried due to lack of specialists in many taxa and the actual tendency or retirements and no replacements with new trained specialists.

I take a pragmatic view - the rules do not govern this, they just suggest it would be best to have holotypes in public institutions. This is fair, I think. Often the type thing is overemphasized. They are not HOLY RECLICS- I would be very careful in securing all old types, but not that vigilant about new ones. Why? Well only good descriptions should be accepted and the confusing created by identity problems is not likely to be as big as with things described by great scientist like Sturm, Linnaeus and Fabricius. All actions diminishing people´s interest in collect samples and reveal new taxa are a negative thing.

The problem is simply misstated: the difference between appropriate and not appropriate collection is not whether it is private or "public" but whether the specimens (especially types) preserved in it are made available to scientists for study or not: a specimen, however well preserved, not available for study is effectively worthless, worse than non-existent!. Unfortunately my long (more than half century) experience says that in this respect the average private collection is better than average "public": I remember only one situation when my request for loan of needed specimens from private collection has been refused (and of course myself was always happy to make "my" specimens available for interested Colleagues), but cannot say the same of several "public" museums... And even as regards safety of preservation the difference shifts more and more to the "private" side, especially in the situation when as well public interest in taxonomy as public funds for taxonomic "infrastructure" and work, and consequently curatorial staff in museums, became increasingly deficient and even the suggestions to replace real specimens by technological gadgets are being seriously considered!

Types, holotypes, paratypes, lectotypes, syntypes, any type should be protected, and we hope for it, but there is no control or enforcement . There are countries that have official requirements of having the type or types deposited in a local official museum. There are countries that have rules of not allowing material out of the country. Often we read articles in which is NOT indicated were the type or types have been deposited; the editors should be alert of the missing data and call it to the attention of the authors. A very complicated topic. Perhaps a solution, sure not the best one, is saving high resolution digital images of the types, and publishing them with the description, just in case the type or types are lost.

Ronald: Yes, "saving high resolution digital images of the types, and publishing them with the description" would be a good idea, but:

1) only as a supplement to , not replacement of, the actual specimen (no picture can provide all possibly needed information);

2) unfortunately not everybody has equipment and/or photographic skill to make picture of high technical quality, and most "leading" journals do not accept pictures technically deficient, even if showing the important details perfectly well!

Dear Roman, I do agree. The best is to deposited in a local museum the holotype and paratypes, and mail couple of paratypes to an international Museum with good access and facilities for the study of the material.

Ronald: In this point I do not agree... Scientific specimens (including types!) should be deposited in collections assuring best possibilities of appropriate use, i.e. a) allowing best access to the material for interested students, and b) warranting stable interest in and possibility for careful preservation not depending upon changing political or other fashions and preferences. This may be (in order of probablility of fulfilling the above requirements):

1) private collection of the author;

2) private collection of another taxonomist working on the respective group;

3) large, internationally renowned museum housing already many important specimens (including types), employing many taxonomists and well known to all taxonomists in the world;

4) as the last option, a local museum!

Of course, these are general, not "individualized", tendencies - in particular special situations it might, naturally, happen that a local museum is "user-friendly", well curated and reliably secured against fluctuating whims of "decision-makers", while the author of the description is a dabbler-"philatelist" not interested in making his/her collection available for further studies: such situations do, indeed, occur but according to my 60-years-long experience the probabilities are as above!

I fully agree with Roman Bohdan Holynski. A picture, howsoever good it is, cannot be a replacement of the specimen. The specimen must be deposited in a "recognized repository" and the same must be mentioned in the publication along with its "registration number" allotted by the Repository. The Repository must not be private. It must be such where the desired specimen must be available on demand by a scientist for further study/ restudy.

I described a single species of Heteroptera (Orthotylus riegeri Heckmann, 2000), which was transferred to Blepharidopterus), according to two specimens. As long as I'm able to work scientifically, I'll keep them in my own collection. If there is more material of a newly described species I would give the holotypus to an recommended museum (In my case, Geneva for example).

Best wishes,

Ralf Heckmann

Dear Ralf Heckmann,

Is this practice code compliant?

Yes R. K. Saxena it is code compilant but the problem is extremely complex as can be deduced from the discussions. I agree with Roman Bohdan Hołyński that the most important is the availability of the material for scientific study and this is not owner dependent (private vs. museum). However, we have to think about time as well. A private collection is quite time limited, I mean if the owner dies nobody knows what will happen afterwards. Will it be available for study, loan etc? or simply will put away in a garage corner? In a museum it should be (theoretically) curated even if there is no specialist of the group in question. But in the future it can be an active collection again if a new specialist is hired. Therefore I personally prefers museum depositing at least the holotype. But the best is spreading the type material (if enough specimens are present) among different institutions. It secures a better chance of survival.

Please see Article 40.7 of the “International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants” as given below:

Article 40.7: “For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or after 1 January 1990 of which the type is a specimen or unpublished illustration, the single herbarium, collection, or institution in which the type is conserved must be specified (see also Rec. 40A.5 and 40A.6)”.

(Reference: Turland NJ, Wiersema JH, Barrie FR, Greuter W, Hawksworth DL, Herendeen PS, Knapp S, Kusber W-H, Li D-Z, Marhold K, May TW, McNeill J, Monro AM, Prado J, Price MJ. Smith GF (eds.). 2018. International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzhen Code) adopted by the Nineteenth International Botanical Congress Shenzhen, China, July 2017. Regnum Vegetabile 159. Glashütten: Koeltz Botanical Books. DOI https://doi.org/10.12705/Code.2018).

The above article clearly specifies that the Type of the species must be deposited in a recognized repository, failing which the species will not be considered validly published, i.e. it will have no status as per Code. Regarding this, there is no choice or discretion with the authors. I again emphasize that a picture, howsoever good it is, cannot be a replacement of the specimen. The specimen must be deposited in a recognized repository and the same must be mentioned in the publication along with its registration number allotted by the Repository. The Repository must not be private. It must be such where the desired specimen must be available on demand by a scientist for further study/ restudy for a longer period of time (till the repository lasts).

Please see the attached paper wherein 2 genera and 39 species of fossil spores and pollen (published after 01 January 1990) recorded from the Indian Tertiary sediments, which were not validly published due to lack of mention of repository, have been validated.

(Reference: Saxena RK 2011. Validation of the names of two genera and thirty-nine species of fossil spores and pollen from the Indian Tertiary sediments. Taxon 60(3): 860-865.

I wish any or some of the nomenclatural experts, who are on ResearchGate, will add more to our knowledge on this interesting subject.

Yes, however Heteroptera is governed by ICZN and its wording is a bit different.

16.4. Species-group names: fixation of name-bearing types to be explicit

Every new specific and subspecific name published after 1999, except a new replacement name (a nomen novum), for which the name-bearing type of the nominal taxon it denotes is fixed automatically [Art. 72.7], must be accompanied in the original publication

16.4.1. by the explicit fixation of a holotype, or syntypes, for the nominal taxon [Arts. 72.2, 72.3, 73.1.1, 73.2 and Recs. 73A and 73C], and,

16.4.2. where the holotype or syntypes are extant specimens, by a statement of intent that they will be (or are) deposited in a collection and a statement indicating the name and location of that collection (see Recommendation 16C).

Recommendation 16C. Preservation and deposition of type specimens. Recognizing that name-bearing types are international standards of reference (see Article 72.10) authors should deposit type specimens in an institution that maintains a research collection, with proper facilities for preserving them and making them accessible for study (i.e. one which meets the criteria in Recommendation 72F).

So, deposition in an institution is only a recommendation!

While International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants is strict regarding submission of Type Specimen in a recognized repository, the ICZN is more flexible and liberal and does not treat the species "not validly published" on this account. As far as statement of intent is concerned, no time limit is specified for fulfilling such intent. Recommendation 16C, although not binding, expresses expectation of the Code from authors. I think it will not be good on the part of authors to test the limits of the ICZN by exploiting the flexibility provided therein. In my personal opinion, it will be good for bringing some discipline and stability in nomenclature if Recommendation 16C is upgraded as an Article in the next edition of the ICZN.

I always deposit the ht into a major museum and I am trying to be sure that my personal reference collection will go there.

About major Museums, non all of them complain with the code: for instance I was never able to see types deposited inJapan museums and very seldom I received an answer to my emails from them.

To echo Enrico: Even some major museums in Europe, such as Paris and also NHM in London have made it tricky to the extreme to get access to at least parts of their collection. There may be silence regarding correspondence, sudden non-pre-communicated 'disappearance' to field or whatever of the curator (and nobody else able to locate the specimen for superficial examination in situ, no permission to lend specimens, make dissections, or get photographs - in NHM that can be arranged if the local curator is included as an author - to me this is outrageous. These institutes have thus practically excluded themselves from scientific community. Hosting tens of thousands primary types this is not a minor issue. This is my experience. Perhaps in some other departments of these institutes some common sense still remains.

Dear Enrico Ricchiardi,

In Japan, we always deposit our type materials of mites (Arachnida: Acari) as slide-mounted specimens in the National Museum of Nature and Science, under voucher specimen numbers written in our manuscripts. You can also get access and make examinations as well.

Best regards,

Mohamed

One thing is to get access. Another not be able to receive specimens for study. According to Code recommandation

The latest beetle described from Finland (2 months ago) is deposited in the collector's collection.

It is of course clear that all type material should be available for people working with taxonomy, but this is not the case unfortunately.

Ive had some experiences in Mexico, where manuscripts with described species mention that type material is deposited at Mexico (a couple of museums as Colección Nacional de Insectos, at UNAM, another one at UNAM) and also with a collection of the Academy of Sciences in California (USA) and after personal communication with curators such specimens were never deposited there, or the type material was never returned by authors, so I think this is a really big problem for further studies, particularly because when someone wants to look at the type specimens, they are not where they are supposed to be, and with time the material will get lost.

And another experience where type material is deposited at private collections and you never get reply from the owners so you can look at the material, just my personal experiences.

So I completely agree the all type material should be deposited at public collections, with proper regulations and management.

Unfortunately the idea that everything should be deposited somewhere official and then things are fine is simplistic. There are museums that cannot send or digitize types because all their effort goes to keeping them safe, others have curators who believe they know who are good and who are bad recipients on personal questionable reasons and there are museums who refuse to send material to non-museum people. Indeed, some museums are in such a horrible physical state because of governmental negligence state that their collections are in acute danger of being destroyed.

Of course types should be safe and available, but at the same time it is even more important that descriptions are so well documented - including the type specimens - that the study of the types becomes less crucial. Digitization of the material is without question the best way to solve the problems related to types. It is annoying not to get a type one needs for study, but insisting on their depositories to be of some specific "legal" type is failing to understand the realities of the thing. Most of us in the field remember the story of the absolute world specialist of a beetle group, who donated his huge collection with numerous holotypes to a well-known museum in the US. When he wanted to checkl a type of his own species, he was told that "they do not send types to amateurs".

Santiago and Victor: The situations you refer to are indeed very bad, but you should note that it is partly just the result of the pression to deposit types in museums (or, frequently, even to ban private collections at all!), connected with museum-curatorial practices described by Jyrki (and experienced e.g. by myself: even with PhD in biology and ca. 130 publications I am formally an "amateur" and cannot borrow not only types but even "ordinary" specimens from some museums...). The logic of the situation is clearly illustrated by the reaction of one of my "amateur [in this case true amateur, without scientific qualifications] archaeologist" colleague when asked if his collection was seen by specialists: "I would be very happy to cooperate with specialists, but cannot: if I show anything, I would be immediately deprived from all my collection [in Poland archaeological collections are illegal] and would have never seen it any more! Don't be a swine, don't say anybody that I have it!". I am rather sure that if it is unambiguously and reliably declared that private collections are legal and no attempts to force their donations to museums will be undertaken under the only condition of making them available to researchers, then practices like those described by Santiago and Victor would perhaps not completely disappear but anyway become much less frequent - with serious advantage to both the collectors and interested scientists!

My private collection is alive, that is, that I need the Holotypes, Paratipes... to continue working. When I finish my activity, I will think to whom I donate them, maybe to another private or official collection that needs them and knows how to value properly?

Hello all; Given the avalanche of defects in the current system that you all have described...I'd like to hear a specific description of the preferred system. Will it protect specimens in perpetuity, will it work for a hundred years and will it welcome all serious workers in the field? That seems to encapsulate the comments above. Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers

Well, we would need a democratic stable governement interested in education and safekeeping of the globe's biological past. We would also need well funded, knowledagle technical staff able to provide both digital services and loans.

There is a tendency to reduce science in IFs and other easily understandable (on surface that is) measures and there is no museum in this world, irrespective of the field that survives in this kind of enviroment. To get he funding, they need to change the focus to climate change, biodiversity loss, extinction etc, fields that generate a lot of generally interesting publications. Important they are, of course, but taxonomy and systematics they are not.

I doubt there is a generally preferred system, unless you are willing to accept a 51% over a 49%. In my view the most important thing as to primary types go, is to be able to provide secure, scientifically accurate and fast service to ANY taxonomist needing it. If that is possible only digitally, so be it. This requirement means that a functioning, well-organized collection with adequate staff exists. People needing access to types should also always include a copy of the original description with their request. Even really famous institutions have numerous "types" that are actually not syntypes at all and this can be checked only from the original description.

The official centers only focus on obtaining the maximum number of Holotypes to increase their prestige without most of them worrying about the legion of entomologists that we are working with money from our pockets that nobody pays us.

In summary.- I believe that - although there is an enormous dispersion of Holotypes by different private or official collections - we are better than we were years ago. Please, I beg you to let us work and not put the official centers more tripping.

Jyrki and Andres; It sounds like the consensus is that the national museums of stable nations fits the infrastructure need. Those institutions seem like they are currently doing that except for the one big grievance...taxonomists without an institutional affiliation have a very hard time gaining access. Let's focus on that particular issue. In my circle of colleagues, we have managed to get something like "visiting scholar" status as some larger institution. That works. What do you think? Jim Des Lauriers

A very recent example: The holotype female of Dorcadion (Maculatodorcadion) triste lesvicum Mpamnaras, Zafeiriou & Özdikmen, 2020 from Greece, is deposited in my private collection.

When compiling info for this publication, we were not able to find proof of deposition in the country's museum (where the publication says they are) for 16 holotypes and 51 paratypes. That is some 20% of all invertebrate type material for the country.

Article Diversity and distribution of type specimens deposited in th...

Recent example: Psalidognathus victorsinyaevi Lazarev & Murzin, 2019 (beetle), they basically selling the HOLOTYPE on eBay for 4800$! Paper was published in some local low-quality Russian journal that not even specialized in biology. Very sad. Recommendation 16C should be an article that demands it for the name to be available, not just recommendation.

Dear Igor Balashov,

You mean Holotype on Sale? Simply ridiculous. It seems that time has come that depositing holotype in a recognized repository must be made mandatory by ICZN for valid publication of new taxon similar to that in ICNafp.

R K Saxena

Dear Dr. Saxena, yes, the holotype is on sale, in the paper it was indicated that type specimens are in some private collection.

Selling holotypes in places like ebay is certainly not something anyone wamts to see, but naturally there are situations where collections including all kinds of types can be sold to museums and in fact it would be good if this took place. The Zoological Museum in Helsinki has bought important collections exactly because of this in modern times - an example is the great Angelov collection of weevils. Besides, it all depends on the type of organism we are discussing. Dinosaurs from Native American soil belong to these people and of course they have the right to sell any potential holotype material as they wish. There are many aspects to this question that need to be considered. One should not forget he fact that there are potentially keen and able people working with next to no salary in this world.

I for one deplore the fact that some of the most extreme countries insisting that types should be in museums do not offer any possibility to loan them! This is in the ICZN as well, but try to get something from the famous entomological collections in Dehra Dun - just an example.

Dear Dr. Muona, I think it's very different when we're talking about buying some old collections and when people in 2019 describing the species and selling the holotype on ebay. In ICZN we have some articles that applicable only "after 1999", in the same way it should be banned to deposit the holotype in private collections from some year. Of course dinosaurs from lands of Native Americans belong to them, but nobody should use these samples as type specimens before some museum will buy it or if native people will put it in some their museum. I'm one of those "people working with next to no salary in this world", but still it never crossed my mind to sell my type specimens, especially the holotypes, or to keep them in my private collection. I'm also working with fossils, most notably in amber, and it is a big problem that specimens are in the private collections and we should find the funding to have them or simply people don't want to sell them or wanting some very large price. There is one such specimen in the private collection that is clearly a new species, I've made good photos of it, and I would describe it if I would have it in the collection of my institution, it would be possible to describe it with indication that holotype is in private collection, but I'm not even considering it. Perhaps I will publish this record with photos, but without describing any new taxa. And as a curator of the collection I'm totally against giving the type specimens on loan. Very often it will end up lost or in other collection (have numerous examples). If a researcher wants to work physically with the type specimens then he or she should visit the institution where they're stored.

I fully agree with you , Dr Igor Balashov

In the case of the Oligochaeta, recent new species' descriptions have their types deposited in acceptable institutions. In preparing Nomenclatura Oligochaetologica (available here on ResearchGate for downloading), many of the pre 1900 species, the types have been lost or missing. We continually ask our colleagues to assist us in completing the missing data.

Hello all; I mentioned it before but it bears repeating. Editors should have evidence that the type material for any new description has ALREADY been deposited in a secure, public collection as a condition of publication. That doesn't solve all the problems mentioned above but it would certainly help. Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers

ICZN is allowing description of new taxa in the self-published books and predatory journals that publishing anything for money and not indexed in Zoological Record or elsewhere. So responsible editors in serious journals will not solve the problem. Obviously all serious zoological journals demand the type material to be deposited in public collections.

I agree with James

Igor: No country, no government, no nation (whether "native" or "non-native" is the owner of biodiversity, of flora and fauna, only because by some historical accident it has found itself at this or that place, and in particular the scientific material is the "propriety" not of particular person or group but of the world's scientific community - if some person or group claims the opposite, it is simply an usurpation! On the other hand, there is no important difference between "public" and "private" collections, but only between those assuring free and easy (e.g. by loans) access to the specimens and those who do not: the role of scientific specimens is not "to be preserved" but "to be studied", and this very fact is perhaps sometimes forgotten by private "owners" (although I have almost never such negative experience with private collectors) but much more frequently just by the curators of "public" museums (like, Igor, apparently you ["I'm totally against giving the type specimens on loan ... If a researcher wants to work physically with the type specimens then he or she should visit the institution where they're stored"] - by the way, you must be a very rich man if you really thinks it possible to travel to the opposite end of the world at each time you wish to examine some specimen (I, for example, must have examined hundreds or even thousands to write a single small paper, and one travel abroad means the cost of at least half of our family's monthly income...)!

Roman: I agree with you that such fossils should belong to "the world's scientific community" but it's not how it works under the laws unfortunately. Try to explain it to the legal owners whose business is to sell such stuff. You're wrong that the role of scientific specimens is not to be preserved but to be studied. Both should be achieved. Which is also directly indicated in the ICZN recommendation 16C cited in the question above: "...a research collection, with proper facilities for preserving them and making them accessible for study". Of course as a practicing taxonomist you want it to be easily accessible on the first place, but in nearly half of cases such materials never returns to the collections that owns them, it's not the way to threat the type specimens, especially holotypes or other singular types. Now it can be digitized, which is done by many institutions, if someone asking me I'm doing the photos, but sending it will likely not allow studying of these specimens for many other researchers in the future.

Collecting and selling fossils by locals and otherwise is common in many countries. But they are not holotypes of validly published species. Selling of holotype by scientists is altogether different and is grossly unethical.

Igor: "You're wrong that the role of scientific specimens is not to be preserved but to be studied. Both should be achieved" - no, I am not wrong: the role of specimens is to be studied, preservation is important but only as one of the conditions assuring possibility to perform this role! Even the best preserved specimen not available for study is absolutely worthless, worse than if it does not exist at all! Photograph can sometimes, in simplest situations, suffice, but - especially in case of primsry types - serious study usually demands the examination of the actual specimen!

"sending it will likely not allow studying of these specimens for many other researchers in the future" - why? Specimens in my private collections are freely available for study by anybody; those borrowed by me from other (institutional or private) collections remain with me sometimes for years but I send them back as soon as somebody else wishes to study them. Many specimens from my collection have been on loan to some colleagues also for years, some of them (especialy belonging to subgroups I am not likely to need in predictable future) I do not require to be returned at all: it is not important whether the specimens are in my collection, in that of any other specialist, or in this or that "public" museum - the only important is for them to be maximally, most effectively, used in scientific studies! In fact, it is your attitude that does "not allow studying of these specimens for ... researchers"! Not being a millionaire, without the possiblility to borrow specimens a systematist would not be able to perform any non-trivial study!

Roman: first of all, I was talking only about the type specimens, mainly holotypes/lectotypes/neotypes, by the topic of the question, of course there is no problem to send just some specimens or even few paratypes if there are 100 of them. It often happens that researchers, even from the most civilized countries, just want to keep the type specimens of all species from their group in one place and they re-depositing something that they take on loan (basically stealing). It's not theoretical. Even if to assume that all researchers are trustworthy (which is not the case unfortunately), you're telling that you're keeping some specimens for years, but, I'm sorry, if you will suddenly die who will be sending all these specimens back to their owners? Great if you've considered such possibility, but most don't. It's another group of examples with lost type specimens, even in my department, one colleague has died suddenly, we received request to return the type specimens that he take on loan, but never found them. And simply the post services are working not good enough in some countries, some specimens ending up being lost by them. Problem of the private collections is that their owners are not immortal and it is good if they give them in will to some institution or to some other specialist who will also provide free access (and still how other specialists supposed to find it?), but such collections are very often ending up in the waste. Making type specimens accessible for study is when someone coming to the institution and specimens are given to study in some place inside the institution, not to give them away. You're rejecting the importance of type specimens, their preservation should be high priority, not only for some one specialist that currently working on the group, but also for the future studies.

Igor: "first of all, I was talking only about the type specimens, mainly holotypes/lectotypes/neotypes" - I wrote about specimens (and any other scientific material: data, photographs, informations) in general, but all my statements and arguments are especially true and important just in case of primary types: if I cannot borrow an "ordinary" specimen from your museum, it may be possible to receive another, equivalent one from other collection, or - with some luck - perhaps I will be able to collect it myself; but if I cannot borrow the type, no equivalent exists, so the type is effectively non-existent [in fact, as I wrote, it is worse than if non-existent: truly non-existent (never designated, lost, destroyed) may be replaced by designation of lecto- or neotype, but "existing non-existent" type effectively blocks any possibility to perform a serious study!].

"It often happens that researchers, even from the most civilized countries, just want to keep the type specimens of all species from their group in one place" - a very sensible idea, although I have never heard of such practices...

"if you will suddenly die who will be sending all these specimens back to their owners?" - first of all, as repeatedly emphasised, I do not consider anybody (person or institution, including myself), the "owner" of specimens - we are only "curators", whose duty is to act on behalf of scientific community in the "interest" of science [not of any particular person, institution, country &c.!]! But the problem does anyway not exist: of course the contact with the curator of the loaning collection will be continued by the person/institution who will "inherit" my specimens!

"You're rejecting the importance of type specimens" - no, I do not reject the importance of type specimen - on the contrary, I consider them very important, and just therefore they must be available for study to any specialist who may need them, rather than be closed like personal jewellery in a strongbox accessible only to the "owner" acting in the capacity of a gardener's dog...

Roman: You've convinced me that I'm absolutely right, considering the type specimens "effectively non-existent" only because it is problematic for you to visit other institution is odd at best. Museums should send their most valuable specimens on loan for years to anyone who may need them - sure.

Igor: Yes, sure: this is just what these specimens are for!

I myself have had in my private holotypos collection (currently deposited in a public museum) and I still have a holotype, which I will soon cede to an institution. I believe that holotypes should be deposited in both public institutions and private collections, provided that other researchers are guaranteed access to this holotype. Sometimes, as is my case, we buy fossil pieces of new taxa, at a high price, and we do not describe them for being a unique specimen and having to donate them to a public institution. It may seem like an egocentric posture, but it is.

Francisco: "Sometimes, as is my case, we buy fossil pieces of new taxa, at a high price, and we do not describe them for being a unique specimen and having to donate them to a public institution. It may seem like an egocentric posture, but it is" - egocentric or not, but it is a logical consequence of the pression on scientists to make gifts of their ost important specimens to "public" institutions (which, very often - cf. e.g. Igor's comments! - are not even willing to loan them to researchers for study)!

Hello all; Some of the recent comments reveal something about the motives for collecting. Little chips of stone or tiny mummified chips of chitin on a pin don't have any intrinsic value. It is the discoveries that can be extracted from them that have value. Those discoveries are far less likely to happen in a private collection than they are in a perpetual, well-curated collection. That's why holotypes or other unique specimens belong in a secure place where the community of scholars has access to them.

The fact that some large collections decline to loan specimens is another, but related problem that also deserves more careful discussion. Some curators have the same hoarder mentality that some collectors do. Other curators have loaned specimens that were treated negligently by the borrower...and more. It doesn't help the discipline that some of us feel aggrieved and simply resort to hoarding. I don't know what else to call it. Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers

James: "discoveries are far less likely to happen in a private collection than they are in a perpetual, well-curated collection" - first of all, the alternative "private" or "perpetual, well curated" is false and unfair (even if frequently, demagogically resorted to...): you can justly speak either of "private" vs. "public", or of "perpetual, well curated" vs. "temporary, poorly curated"! And private collections are frequently better curated and have more chances to remain "perpetual" than those of - nowadays often underfunded, curated by non-taxonomists - "public" institutions!

"holotypes or other unique specimens belong in a secure place where the community of scholars has access to them" - yes, of course, and just therefore there is no valid reason to discriminate private collections: according to my 60-years long experience, specimens housed in private collections are, on the average (of course there is some variability witin both groups) easier accessible to the "community of scholars" than those from "public" ones - to say nothing of the evident fact, that the "owner" of the private collection is usually the "author" of the holotype preserved therein, i.e. most probably a specialist in the respective group, i.e. just the very person most likely to need it in her/his further studies and to make the best scientific use of that "little chip of stone or tiny mummified chip of chitin on a pin"!

It depends on a researcher. Many known recent cases when invertebrate holotypes (inclusive those of fossil taxa, e.g., amber inclusions) being deposited in private collections. On the other hand, private collections usually end in museums.

Moreover, as Roman correctly highlighted, many new discoveries are happen in a private collections

Well, rules are nice things but ... private and public post services do not know the Code. Since december 31st 2020 I sent my holotypes and paratypes to museums but after that date I was not able to send a single parcel. Everybody do not accept "dried insects for scientific study", so my newer holotypes are still forcefully in my personal collection. Any suggestions?

Enrico,

I think the situation you mention is unfortunate. It is certainly true that the pandemic has significantly affected museums, and particularly the ability to send and receive loans and donations of material. Providing your type specimens meet all requirements in terms of permits and other paperwork, I see no problem that you housing them - because of the pandemic - temporarily in your private collection (assuming here that you can house them to a high standard for a long period of time) until such time as they can be deposited in a public institution. If this is the case and you describe species stating in the original description(s) the types are in your personal collection it would be very good practice, once they are deposited in a public institution, to make sure this is stated somewhere in print, either in your next taxonomic article or perhaps (if depositing lots of specimens) as a standalone article.

Kind Regards,

Danniella Sherwood

Danielle. I do not think that the problem wasn't Covid (just delay) but Brexit. In Italy (and I was told in Germany too) private and public postal services simply doesn't accept specimens correctely declared. Could be that if you work in an University the office itself try a a way, but for private researched the only way is to declare something lke "samples". This i really dangereus for holotypes. If the Customs services open the parcel they cad destroy the wrong content. Anybodys else faced this problem?

Hi Enrico,

I am based in the United Kingdom and have not encountered such problems. Here, we have clearly defined guidelines for sending and receival of specimens in the post. I would suggest contacting the curators of the museums in which you wish to deposit your material to see what they say. Is it possible instead (if regulations allow) for you to hand-carry the material to the institution? If so, you could ensure the safety of the specimens during transit.

Kind Regards,

Danniella

It's a common situation. Establishment of a worldwide "type bank" would be great for solving these and similar problems. Preservation of type specimens is a big problem.