This discussion is meant to seek opinions, not to blame and shame anybody. Therefore no names.

Today I saw the holotypes of some small and fragile gastropods (irrelevant how/where). I was shocked to find the specimens partially broken open to show the internal structure of the columella, then covered (supposedly silverchloride) for SEM photography. Apparently there was a problem afterward ungluing the specimens: apex and several whorls were severely damaged. The specimens were still recognisable, but far from optimal.

I think it is irrelevant whether it was the author who did this, a museum assistant or a posterior researcher as (as far as I know) this were not species with unique specimens. If it were the author or a museum assistant before publication, another specimen could have been selected as holotype. But in any case, it seems logical to treat the holotype as sacrosanct and give such special treatment (breaking open/covering for SEM) to other specimens, preferably paratypes. Maybe a special exception would be made if multiple similar (cryptic) species would occur at the type locality, but then non-destructive methods should be selected. If it were a later researcher.... even less understandable.

Of course accidents happen everywhere. We all have our own stories. But again, holotypes are sacrosanct. Or are there different views?