Dear you,

I agree with all of us: limited access to certain holotypes and types is a real problem that should not exist if we follow the rules... For this, as editor and reviewer, we have to be strict. Indeed, in the case of open quarries, a collaborative way with collectors is the solution ; moreover working with them is a good opportunity to benefit from their great field efforts and guide them in a valuable field approach.

The point about public vs private institution is interesting but might be considered depending on the country... however, in any case of private institution, I suggest to care about the status of the collections to distinguish reliable ones: it has to be very clear and inalienable, i.e., they cannot be privatized in any case).

At last, the security questions seem very hard to tackle globally and each one appears as a "case study" I suppose ! Anyway, we can manage to make clear all other situations !!!

Best,

Olga.

Hi Gloria,

I think such a species is not valid, because Art. 72.10 of the Code (ICZN) reads:

72.10. Value of name-bearing types. Holotypes, syntypes, lectotypes and neotypes are the bearers of the scientific names of all nominal species-group taxa (and indirectly of all animal taxa). They are the international standards of reference that provide objectivity in zoological nomenclature and must be cared for as such (see Recommendations 72D to 72F). They are to be held in trust for science by the persons responsible for their safe keeping.

Recommendation 72D. Labelling of name-bearing types.Holotypes, syntypes, lectotypes and neotypes should be labelled in a way that will unmistakably denote their status.

Recommendation 72E. Publication of information on labels. An author who designates a holotype, lectotype, neotype or syntypes should publish all information that appears on the labels accompanying the specimens so as to facilitate the future recognition of the specimens.

Recommendation 72F. Institutional responsibility. Every institution in which name-bearing types are deposited should

72F.1 ensure that all are clearly marked so that they will be unmistakably recognized as name-bearing types;

72F.2 take all necessary steps for their safe preservation;

72F.3 make them accessible for study;

72F.4 publish lists of name-bearing types in its possession or custody; and

72F.5 so far as possible, communicate information concerning name-bearing types when requested.

A private collection does not meet this requirements.

Greetings Jürgen

Dear Gloria:

In my concern, this topic is precisely included among "recommendations" of the Code. As such, strictly it is not necesary that type-specimens be included in institutional collections. It is recommendable, but not a requirement.

Of course, if we create a new taxon, the best we can do is choosing specimen/s deposited in a recognided Institution. But in the case of already created taxa, we can't consider them as "invalid" just because their are deposited in private collections.

Best regards.

Thank very much Juergen for your comments and the information that you provide concerning this aspect, that in some cases can be especially problematic.

Gloria

Dear Pablo,

Thank you very much for your answer. Certainly, I am not referring to taxa that were created long ago that in many cases, although a holotype was not designated (at least the specimen can be found in a museum where it have been kept), a researcher still may be able to trace the specimen(s) used in the original description. My question/concern is associated with year 2017 (or if you like, with this century), when still some new taxa have being described with the type material deposited in a private collection and when a researcher has requested to see the holotype specimen the answer has been negative. It is also the case, and it is known from many cases, especially in paleontology, that when the private owner of a collection has died, the relatives unaware of the importance of the collection have destroyed or have misplaced the material and the information. Thus, since the pass of time has shown many negative examples, would it be desirable that holotypes of currently described new taxa are deposited in a museum collection or recognized institution?

Best regards.

Dear all:

I think type material should be accessible to researchers and deposited in a permanent collection according to the 72.10. rule.

Many private collections, as in private universities or foundations meet those requirements, and, unfortunately, some public institutions don’t.

 In some cases access to the museum catalog has been denied to some researchers and in other cases such a catalog seems to be inexistent. 

Many socalled museums created during last years is small towns don’t have nor catalog nor any scientific direction nor curator. In some countries paleontological material has been deposited in historical museums or “regional curiosities” museums without any scientific criteria or staff.

I think a world register of “valid” scientific institutions may be a must, and not only types but also all studied material should be logged in such institutions, accomplishing with scientific and also ethical requirements.

Best wishes.

Dear Gloria:

Yes, it would be desirable as you say. Or -in terms of the Code- "Recommendable". Unfortunatelly, from a nomenclatural perspective, housing of type specimens in private collections remains as a valid practice.

I understand your concern. In our country we have suffered the same problems you listed.

I think the publication of a new description with this singularity depends exclusively on the policies of the corresponding journal (not in the Code).

In the case of animals (extant or fossils), it would be interesting that the International Commision on Zoological Nomenclature review this topic. For instance, transpossing this recommendation as an article. Of course, this could be a matter of discussion.

Dear Enrique,

Thank you very much for your answer that illustrates other kind of problems that sometimes (fortunately, not very often) researchers have encountered in some recognized institutions. Additionally, I am aware that some researchers have faced many problems just to deposit type material in some institutions. Sometime, there was no enough personal to do the job of cataloguing material or even (as you mention) there was no a curator in charge, but in others, a museum reserves the right not to accept a specimen when the origin of the specimen(s) is uncertain or the researcher lacked a permission to collect the specimen (s) and/or the submitted data concerning the specimen(s) are ambiguous. Unfortunately, many of such doubtful specimens find a way to be deposited in institutions that could belong within the categories that you mention in your comments. In my field, there is a website with a list of institutions all over the world, where specimens have been deposited in the past and can be deposited today. Independently of this, some colleagues still choose private collections making the specimens no accessible to others. What should be our attitude to this?

Best,

Gloria

Hi gloria. My view is that specimens sholuld be located in publically accesible collections. Remind private universities...

A interesant expo about public collections administred as private ones by thur curator was done in past year european vertebrste paleontology meeting. Its on podcast. In this moment i dont have the link. I search and post

unfortunately in part this is inevitable since it depends on how collections were funded, if a specimen collection is privately funded it will probably go to a private collection. Alternatives are publicly funded expeditions, a remote possibility given the budget restraints that lead to the problems highlighted above as to lack of expertise in museums, or the ignoring of material. While the second option could arguably be the scientific approach in that our work must be repeatable & if only one researcher has access to a specimen then this obviously is not the case it does lead to anomalous situations whereby material is almost censored. There is also the question as to how we deal with reclassification, if it is decided to reclassify two species as one and the first known sample is in a restricted access collection do we then change the rules and accept the second specimen to be identified as the type specimen. I can see enormous problems with this in that it leaves open scientific research to even more political medalling, e.g. , thought experiment time, 2 specimens exist the older find is in Iran the newer in USA given US Presidents ideas I can see a situation whereby the Iranian specimen is declared inaccessible to US and allied scholars and therefore pressure is put on scientific community to use the US example.

Sorry for the delay. Here is the promised link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se7r_ZecaMM

Dear Enrique,

Thank you for the link to the video. It is a very important document concerning museums and their collections, code of ethic for museums, and the need to improve collection access in museums worldwide. But them, if museums and their authorities are taking care of those aspects, there is no security that those aspects are followed by private collections and their owners. Thus, the question remains: Is there a need to study material deposited in private collections? What does someone gain or what does science gain by describing specimens and/or erecting new taxa from such kind of institutions when the experience tells us that most of those specimens will not be accessible to researcher who would like to examine or re-study them. Should such taxa be considered valid specimens if they are not accessible to others? I am aware that some private collections have some unique specimens, but what does it mean when such a unique specimen will not be accessible to open science?

Thanks again for your interest on this subject.

All the best,

Gloria

surely it is not a case of what does science gain? surely it is a case of dealing with what exists, if the material is held within private collections then, if we can access it, it needs to be studied and acknowledged. Its not ideal but its often all we have

Hello!

I live in a country, where private collectors could be really problematic, however, not all of them, state this before everything. I am working on a Badenian shark material, and lets be honest: shark teeth have been, are, and always will be among the favourites of private collectors. It is impossible to keep them away from such localities, since here, in Hungary, there is no law against private collecting. In this case, we need to cooperate with them, or at least, with the ones able to cooperate with.

Some of them simply do not give their specimen to museal collections, however, some private specimens could be "only" specimens of such taxa. I even published private collection specimens in my last paper on this locality, however, I try to walk ahead of the collectors by as many collecting trip, as many I am able to take. Until that, I have to cooperate, however, sometimes, it is still really hard.

Dear you,

I agree with all of us: limited access to certain holotypes and types is a real problem that should not exist if we follow the rules... For this, as editor and reviewer, we have to be strict. Indeed, in the case of open quarries, a collaborative way with collectors is the solution ; moreover working with them is a good opportunity to benefit from their great field efforts and guide them in a valuable field approach.

The point about public vs private institution is interesting but might be considered depending on the country... however, in any case of private institution, I suggest to care about the status of the collections to distinguish reliable ones: it has to be very clear and inalienable, i.e., they cannot be privatized in any case).

At last, the security questions seem very hard to tackle globally and each one appears as a "case study" I suppose ! Anyway, we can manage to make clear all other situations !!!

Best,

Olga.

In general, I have had excellent relations and cooperation with private collectors. But from the start I have made clear that I cannot publish anything that is not catalogued in a recognized institution. I have explained, in detail, to the private collectors the situation with type material and the rules about such specimens. In several cases, I have dedicated the name of a new species or a new genus to the collector in recognition of his generosity donating valuable specimens to a museum. I think, as Olga wrote, that we can talk to them, explain the rules, explain the importance of the specimen(s) for science, etc., but also we should recognize their cooperation when it is appropriate. But it is our duty not to be part of any 'ilegal' action when it comes to type material. We already have too many problems with holotypes that no one can find after one hundred years or more or type material destroyed during wars, etc. We do not need to add more to the problem when we realize that a specimen deposited in a certain private collection will not be open to the scientific community. Many journals are now requesting information about the repository of the study material in a manuscript. I believe that this is a correct policy and we should support this effort.

Mmm... I don't know if it would be valid or not.

But, sadly, it's rather common to deposite type specimens in collections of private institutions and in my opinion that should almost be as discouraged than depositing them in private collections.

Many private universities or museums have lucrative interests and specimens integrity and accesibility shouldn't depend on the commercial success of a guy or a bunch of associates...