The Shenzen Code in his several articles treats the way botanists should move around nomenclature. It is interesting to read all the several examples that the Code brings for each case. However, there is nothing (as far as I´ve read) that states what to do when the description does not fit the features of the holotype designated. In other words, a name could be rejected when the description or diagnosis does not resemble what is seen on the holotype designated?. I mean (again), what happens when someone decides to propose a name based on a description and diagnosis with invented features that are obviously not found on the holotype designated?! any thoughts?
Dear Alexander, each case should be considered individually and one general answer cannot be given. Remember that The Code says 'The nomenclatural type is not necessarily the most typical or representative element of a taxon' (Art. 7.2.). So it is necessary to consider whether the author based the description solely on this one specimen (holotype) or quoted more of them and show the variability of the species. Maybe the remaining specimens that show the cited features absent on the holotype are found in other herbaria, etc. I hope this helped you, Regards
Dear Alexander, each case should be considered individually and one general answer cannot be given. Remember that The Code says 'The nomenclatural type is not necessarily the most typical or representative element of a taxon' (Art. 7.2.). So it is necessary to consider whether the author based the description solely on this one specimen (holotype) or quoted more of them and show the variability of the species. Maybe the remaining specimens that show the cited features absent on the holotype are found in other herbaria, etc. I hope this helped you, Regards
Hi.
In paleontology, when there is a discrepancy between the holotype and its original description, it is assumed that there was an exchange of specimens either during labeling or during reordering or study work, etc. If you really want to solve the problem, there are at least three solutions. First solution is to search the museum collection for a specimen with the same characteristics as the original description and, if found, consider it as the true holotype. Second solution, if it is considered that the present specimen actually belongs to a new species, is to establish a new species and consider the present specimen as the holotype. Last solution, one can go to the type locality mentioned in the work, look for a specimen that clearly reflects the original description and, if found, establish a new type.
Obviously, in the work you have to explain everything well.
Regards,
I agree with that expressed by Sławomir Nowak . A single specimen, the holotype, cannot represent the variability of a species. But it is also the responsibility of the author of the species to choose the holotype, and this is when it should be ensured that it fits as closely as possible to the most typical forms of the new species. This can sometimes be easy, but in other cases, especially in species described later based on old collections, the selection of the holotype may be restricted to few samples not necessarily typical.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Names