Apologies for the confusing wording of the question.
To elaborate:
Smith describes a species, Aus bus Smith in 1875, and in his description, three things are clear:
1. there is only one specimen (that is, the specimen he describes is the holotype by monotypy),
2. Smith, not the most prodigious of scholars, only describes part of the animal, and his description is not sufficiently detailed to allow for identification between sister species, and
3. his good friend Jones, a talented anatomist, has generously illustrated the anatomy of the new Aus bus Smith in a separate paper, from the same monotypic holotype specimen. This illustration is of a different part than Smith described (soft parts vs hard parts, for example).
To make matters worse for recent authors, exhaustive searching has yielded no parts of the holotype among the former collections of either taxonomist. Because it was a description of a monotypic specimen, there is no other contemporary material that can be referred to for reference, and contemporary workers of Jones and Smith expressed confusion with the name.
Recently collected topotypic material is clearly different from Jones' excellent illustrations, but Smith's poor description and lack of illustration makes it impossible to be sure of an ID.
To repeat the principal question: is the fact that there was mutual acknowledgement that the illustrations of Jones were made from the holotype, can Jones' illustrations be used to solidify the concept of the name with comparisons to modern material in the absence of type material?
Do Articles 73.1.2 and 73.1.3 apply in this case? Furthermore, following Article 73.1.2, if it was possible for an author to designate an illustration is a holotype, could an illustration be lectotypified by a later worker? (Understanding that such illustrations are verifiably illustrations of the holotype).
Volume 11 of the "Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History" is available in the Biodiversity Heritage Library, so I checked the Binney and Bland papers. As Bland, in the original description (p. 200) of Amphibulima rawsonis, explicitly cites the paper of Binney, this may be considered as part of the original description:
"W. G. Binney, in the preceding paper, has described the jaw and dentition of the animal, pointing out the peculiarities of the latter as compared with other species of the genus."
So, coming back to your question, I would say yes, if the original author refers to earlier sources, these are part of the original description. We use this principle for Linnaean species, which were often based on multiple sources.
Bland also states (p. 199-200): "The single specimen found was sent to me for determination by Sir Rawson W. Rawson, to whom I dedicate the species."
This means that both Binney and Bland had just a single specimen available, which would then be the holotype of Bland's description, i.e. a holotype fixed by monotypy according to ICZN Art. 73.1.2. The holotype, however, is the specimen and not the illustration. In case that you can demonstrate the holotype is lost, that there are problems with the species identity, and a need to stabilise nomenclature, a neotype designation may be considered, following the provisions of ICZN Art. 75.
The story Is confusing, but I think you are saying that two different biologists reported the same animal from the same specimen, and all agree that it was the same specimen. If all authorities agree on that point, then those anatomical drawings may represent the only good description of Aus. bus. Smith. If your recent specimens do not resemble the drawings, then you have not captured Aus. bus Smith. It must be rare, if there are no other reports or pictures. Good luck
I agree with William - important is that the holotype was illustrated, not who illustrated or described it. It all adds to the understanding of the species. This is why it is so important that holotypes are well kept and accessible in museum collections!
Hi Nathalin – I’m perfectly concord with William: If your specimens do not concord perfectly with the “double description” Smith-Jones, maybe it could be a new species. I don’t know Aus bus, but there are a lot of “ghost-species” and I’m agree with Steffen too: all the holotypus must be in the museum. By the ghost-species, maybe it could be better “freeze” they validity, until the discovery of new good specimens. Good luck Gianluigi
Or are you proposing a hypothetical case with a made-up name? I think the argument I made should generalize to most cases: that the second, better description of the same animal confirms the original report, and is the less confusing for retaining the same nomenclature, even though the original specimen was lost. There were ever so many cases in the early 1800s in the US when both Constantine Rafinesque and Thomas Say independently discovered animals, and were forever rushing to be the first to publish so their description and nomenclature would be the one accepted. I believe more than one such controversy was settled by the existence of a holotype specimen. The story of those men and their competition is a fascinating one. Smithsonian Magazine told that story from Say's point of view several years ago.
Hi Nathaniel et al.,
I am going to disagree with the pack a bit here. Looking at the ICZN, several things are clear. First, Smith did indeed designate a holotype by monotypy (art 73.1.2). Second, he did not illustrate the specimen. An illustration can only be considered a holotype if it is done in the original publication (73.1.4). It doesn't matter what subsequent authors did or did not illustrate. Since a holotype was designated, there can be no lectotype (art 74.1), only if there is a syntypic series.
Thus, you are set up with a situation that you could designate a neotype (art. 75). You may, if you wish, use the subsequent illustration as the neotype. This wouldn't really be optimal for future workers. It is probably best to designate an appropriate specimen (not just an illustration) as the neotype.
Good question and good luck!
Thanks for the answers so far everyone. A few points:
William and Gianluigi: I did indeed use a hypothetical scenario in the example, but it was intended to make things clearer and not more confusing!
The actual situation to which I am referring, if you're interested, is the case of Amphibulima rawsonis Bland, 1875 described in "Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History" in 1875, illustrated by W.G. Binney from the holotype in the same journal, in the paper immediately PRECEDING the description (why they did not just combine their papers, I do not know).
Paul: I agree The part I am unsure of in my specific scenario (A. rawsonis Bland 1875) is whether I should or could designate the illustration as the neotype, or whether to find topotypic material for this. I have dissected specimens that conform to the illustration (so I know the taxon exists and that it is not described adequately by any other nomen), however, the specimen that I dissected was from another island, which raises other questions.
As a first priority, you are after nomenclatural stability. If the Binney illustration allows researchers to understand the species, then use that as the neotype. If the species concept is still vague with the illustration, or could include several species, then use a new specimen.
The island issue is a big one for land snails, since there are so many single island endemics. In this case, I would only select a neotype from specimens collected on the same island, otherwise you might end up further muddying murky waters.
With your specimens from the other island, perhaps you could call them Amphibulima cf. rawsonis, and indicate that no specimens from the type locality are available for comparison. The other alternative would be to describe your species as new. Neither approach is great, but there aren't many alternatives in this case.
Good luck!
Paul
Just a slight devil's advocate view, while agreeing on good advise given, and on the caution advised by Paul RE specimens from a different island. A holotype (or neotype, or lectotype, or whatever) is NOT the illustration of a specimen. It is instead the specimen depicted in the photograph or illustration; whether this specimen can be found or not is a separate problem.
And I also have a question (admitting that I have not myself gone back to examine Bland's and Binney's publications): In your original question you mentioned that "is the fact that there was mutual acknowledgement that the illustrations of Jones were made from the holotype, can Jones' illustrations be used to solidify the concept of the name with comparisons to modern material in the absence of type material?" My question is whether there indeed was MUTUAL acknowledgement (i.e, both authors mentioned that the other was referring to the same, the single specimen (=holotype). The word MUTUAL is critical. If indeed the anatomy published later is from the same specimen, then the specimen upon which it was based is indeed the holotype. No different from a recent photograph is published of a specimen from the type series of a taxon (even if for figured for the fist time) is made 100 years later. But if it can not be ascertained that the figures published later were indeed from the same specimen, then it can not be assumed to represent views of the holotype. And again, it is NOT the figure(s) what is the type, but THE SPECIMEN(s) IT DEPICTED.
A dizzying problem! I think Paul and Francisco have you on the right track. Good luck!
Francisco: we are in agreement about the image being OF the type specimen and not the type itself, however in this case it is extremely and abundantly clear that both authors are talking about one specimen, the same specimen, and that it is clearly the holotype by monotypy. There is no ambiguity there, and because the illustration is already OF the holotype, I can't do anything special to solidify the name other than designate a neotype with a new specimen (however no topotypic specimens are available, I fear A. rawsonis is extinct on Montserrat, though it is living on Saba (or at least one was collected in 1990 which I confirmed by dissection).
I've attached a PDF of the two papers and the plates, everything that Binney and Bland wrote about the species in 1875. The extraneous information and other species treatments are redacted for ease of reading.
Volume 11 of the "Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History" is available in the Biodiversity Heritage Library, so I checked the Binney and Bland papers. As Bland, in the original description (p. 200) of Amphibulima rawsonis, explicitly cites the paper of Binney, this may be considered as part of the original description:
"W. G. Binney, in the preceding paper, has described the jaw and dentition of the animal, pointing out the peculiarities of the latter as compared with other species of the genus."
So, coming back to your question, I would say yes, if the original author refers to earlier sources, these are part of the original description. We use this principle for Linnaean species, which were often based on multiple sources.
Bland also states (p. 199-200): "The single specimen found was sent to me for determination by Sir Rawson W. Rawson, to whom I dedicate the species."
This means that both Binney and Bland had just a single specimen available, which would then be the holotype of Bland's description, i.e. a holotype fixed by monotypy according to ICZN Art. 73.1.2. The holotype, however, is the specimen and not the illustration. In case that you can demonstrate the holotype is lost, that there are problems with the species identity, and a need to stabilise nomenclature, a neotype designation may be considered, following the provisions of ICZN Art. 75.
I completely agree with Ronald Fricke. Good show for all of the extra research on the original description.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Zoology
- Invertebrate Zoology