I am looking into the description of a recently proposed new animal species which was described using 1 holotype and multiple syntypes. (The author used the term syntype/syntypes >10 times in his description, but never used the term paratype, so his desgnation of syntypes was not a simple lapsus for 'paratypes')
This appears to be problematic because according to the ICZN, a holotype is the single specimen upon which a new nominal species-group taxon is based (Art. 73.1), whereas syntypes are specimens of a type series that collectively constitute the name-bearing type (Art. 73.2). Thus, a new species should be described on the basis of either a holotype or multiple syntypes, but not both.
My question is: given this problem, is the proposed new name available? And if so, which is/are the type(s)? Does this require the designation of a lectotype? Should this case be submitted to the ICZN?
This is certainly a problem, as Art. 72.3 requires (for species published after 1999) the fixation of a holotype or syntypes, but not both.
As the holotype should be a single name-bearing specimen, but there are several such specimens in this case, I would suggest to treat the proposed "holotype" as another syntype, and (if necessary) designate a lectotype following the provisions of ICZN Art. 74.
At present, I consider the name as not available as it does not meet the requirements of Art. 72.3.
To me, there seems to be no need to refer this case to the Commission, unless there are other problems involved (like, for instance, that the "holotype" and the syntypes belong to different species).
I think the question is much less complicated than according to Ronald's interpretation: in my opinion, in fact the holotype and several paratypes have been designated - the term "syntypes" used (even though repeatedly) in the publication should be treated as a mistake.
You could follow the simple line and ignore the provisions of the Code, including its definitions of syntype and paratype. The preamble of the Code stresses that its provisions should promote stability and universality and not restrict the freedom of taxonomic thought or action.
However, there will always be the risk that someone comes along stirring up the problem.
To settle the case permanently [and promote stability], a lectotype designation would be preferable.
I do not propose to ignore the provisions of the Code, but only suggest not to apply superfluously cumbersome, counter-intuitive interpretation! The Code - as evident both from George's question and from your (first) answer - does not explicitely prescribe how to treat such case, so (in my opinion) they should (just to 'promote stability') be interpreted in maximally intuitive, simple and straightforward way: the holotype has been designated (in the original publication), so it is (by defenition!) the holo- (not lecto-)type, and in the presence of originally selected holotype any selection of syntypes is invalid! Now to invalidate the holotype and validate the syntypes (in order to select the lectotype or other) would only be an invitation to confusion and instability!
I certainly agree that a holotype was designated in the original publication; unfortunately there were also syntypes proposed, and this is what causes confusion. One interpretation may suggest that the holotype designation is enough and additional syntypes then become invalid; another person might argue that in the presence of syntypes, the holotype designation becomes invalid.
I usually recommend in such cases to contact the author(s) of the original description and give them an opportunity to correct the mistake. In this case, the correction might involve a lectotype designation (and the lectotype may even be identical with the previously proposed holotype).
Eventual "correction" (in separate publication) would effectively mean invalidation of the (holo- and syn-) type designation in the original paper, i.e. invalidation of the species-name, and would only introduce additional (this time truly serious...) confusion whatever would the decision of the author be (he/she could either confirm that the holotype was designated and the term "syntypes" was only a mistake, or that he indeed listed syntypes (having intentionally not selected single type), or designate lectotype (either the same as the holotype or another), or admit that all (of holo- and syntypes) designations were invalid and re-publish the description, or leave it as it is and allow somebody else do any of the above, &c. - anyway increasing chaos, probability of (various!) misinterpretations, and setting the precedence to look for complicated, counterintuitive solutions where simple and straightforward is easily applicable). I think one somewhat erroneous type-designation is enough, more than one could be really disastrous...
I agree with Roman, if the author designated a holotype in the original publication, then the new nominal species-group taxon is based on that specimen (ICZN Art. 73.1.1), never mind if he/she subsequently referred to other specimens as 'syntypes'.
You can not have holotype and syntypes at the same time; all elements (specimens) in the protologue are considered syntypes if at the original description none of it were designed as the holotype. Maybe the author made a mistake considering paratypes as "syntypes"; I do not think that such mistake affects the application of the name.
I agree with Roman here.
Article 73.1.1 states very specifically that the designation of a holotype in the original description renders this specimen the holotype, even if the term holotype was not specifically used:
"73.1.1. If an author when establishing a new nominal species-group taxon states in the original publication that one specimen, and only one, is the holotype, or "the type", or uses some equivalent expression, that specimen is the holotype fixed by original designation."
Syntypes on the other hand may include specimens labeled as "cotype" or just "type", unlabeled specimens used in the description and specimens not seen by the author based on previous descriptions or illustrations.
"3.2.1. Syntypes may include specimens labelled "cotype" or "type" (both used in the meaning of syntype), specimens with no identifying label, and specimens not seen by the author but which form the bases of previously published descriptions or illustrations upon which the author founded the new nominal species-group taxon in whole or in part [Art. 72.5.5]."
Another clue how to answer the question is here i the ICZN code:
"72.4.6. If an author when establishing a nominal species-group taxon nominates either "syntypes" (by that term, or by use of one of the terms "cotypes" or "types" alone), or "holotype and paratypes" used together (or by use of the term "type" together with "allotype" or "cotypes"), and also lists other specimens, the separate mention of the latter expressly excludes them from the type series."
To me this seems to indicate that the absence of a holotype makes a type series used a collection of syntypes and that the designation of holotype renders additional specimens not name bearing (if they are not referred to as types) or makes them paratypes.
A possible way to circumvent a problem with the correction could be to actually publish a correction which contains a nomenclatural disclaimer stating that the term syntype was erroneously used in place of paratype. This will not amend the wrong use in the publication in the terms of the Code but it could serve as a clarification of the author's intend to all that are dealing with taxonomy of the species.
I agree with Roman here.
Article 73.1.1 states very specifically that the designation of a holotype in the original description renders this specimen the holotype, even if the term holotype was not specifically used:
"73.1.1. If an author when establishing a new nominal species-group taxon states in the original publication that one specimen, and only one, is the holotype, or "the type", or uses some equivalent expression, that specimen is the holotype fixed by original designation."
Syntypes on the other hand may include specimens labelled as "cotype" or just "type", unlabelled specimens used in the description and specimens not seen by the author based on previous descriptions or illustrations.
"3.2.1. Syntypes may include specimens labelled "cotype" or "type" (both used in the meaning of syntype), specimens with no identifying label, and specimens not seen by the author but which form the bases of previously published descriptions or illustrations upon which the author founded the new nominal species-group taxon in whole or in part [Art. 72.5.5]."
Another clue how to answer the question is here i the ICZN code:
"72.4.6. If an author when establishing a nominal species-group taxon nominates either "syntypes" (by that term, or by use of one of the terms "cotypes" or "types" alone), or "holotype and paratypes" used together (or by use of the term "type" together with "allotype" or "cotypes"), and also lists other specimens, the separate mention of the latter expressly excludes them from the type series."
To me this seems to indicate that the absence of a holotype makes a type series used a collection of syntypes and that the designation of holotype renders additional specimens not name bearing (if they are not referred to as types) or makes them paratypes.
A possible way to circumvent a problem with the correction could be to actually publish a correction which contains a nomenclatural disclaimer stating that the term syntype was erroneously used in place of paratype. This will not amend the wrong use in the publication in the terms of the Code but it could serve as a clarification of the author's intend to all that are dealing with taxonomy of the species.
If this article is recently published as stated by George in his question, the journal editor should be contacted because this is an error. This mistake should be addressed through a corrigendum and then the problem will be solved.
Mauricio Oscar Zamponi,
Some of your statements are simply wrong regarding zoological nomenclature. I strongly recommend that you read the ICZN Code before giving an answer: http://iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp
Syntypes are specimen that constitute the type material for species description together. All the syntypes are the name bearing type together;
"72.1.1. type series: all the specimens on which the author established a nominal species-group taxon (with the exception of those excluded [Art. 72.4.1]); in the absence of holotype designation, or the designation of syntypes, or the subsequent designation of a lectotype, all are syntypes and collectively they constitute the name-bearing type;"
"73.2. Syntypes. Syntypes are specimens of a type series that collectively constitute the name-bearing type. They may have been expressly designated as syntypes (see Article 73.2.1 for acceptable terms); for a nominal species-group taxon established before 2000 [Art. 72.3] all the specimens of the type series are automatically syntypes if neither a holotype [Art. 72.1] nor a lectotype [Art. 74] has been fixed. When a nominal species-group taxon has syntypes, all have equal status in nomenclature as components of the name-bearing type."
Paratypes are specimen that were used in the original description alongside with the holotype speciemen;
"72.4.5. When an author designates a holotype [Art. 73.1], then the other specimens of the type series are paratypes. The latter do not become syntypes and cannot be used for lectotype selection [Art. 74] if the holotype is lost or destroyed; however, they are eligible for neotype selection (see Recommendation 75A)."
A Lectotype is specimen taken from a syntype series to serve as the only name-bearing specimen (making the other syntypes paralectotypes).;
"74.1. Designation of a lectotype. A lectotype may be designated from syntypes to become the unique bearer of the name of a nominal species-group taxon and the standard for its application (except in the case of hapantotypes [Art. 73.3]).
74.1.1. The valid designation of a lectotype fixes the status of the specimen as the sole name-bearing type of that nominal taxon; no later designation of a lectotype has any validity.
74.1.2. The valid designation of a lectotype supersedes any previous restriction of the application of the name of the taxon.
74.1.3. The valid designation of a lectotype permanently deprives all other specimens that were formerly syntypes of that nominal taxon of the status of syntype [Art. 73.2.2]; those specimens then become paralectotypes."
Sorry, Maurizio, but your comment is a series of misinterpretations. 1) there is no requirement (only a recommendation!) to place the holotype "in a museum with a registered number"; 2) even if the holotype has been placed in a museum there is no requirement (except by some editors) to cite the number in the paper; 3) paratype is not the specimen replacing the lost holotype (this is neotype) but a specimen included in the type-series besides holotype (and formally paratype has no real function in nomenclatural procedures: lectotype can be designated only from syntypes, i.e. only when no holotype was ever designated!); 4) the difference between holotype and syntypes is not their placement in museum vs. in private collection (both possibilities are open for each of them) but the holotype is unique specimen while syntypes are at least two.
Sorry if I might have read this discussion to hastily, but could it be that the author messed up the dual terms holotype and isotype rather than holotype and syntype?
I pretty much agree with Jen's response. If no holotype is designated in the type description and the species name is based on two or more specimens then these are syntypes, and the subsequent designation of a lectotype from the type series makes the other specimens paralectotypes.
Many of yours are in the Truth, particularly the first of yours (Drs. Holinski and Van Rooy). Holotype is unique and is the specimen on which is based the description of the new species. And as answered others among yours, ICZN has edited very clear definition of holotype and of paratypes.
Species description is usually made with only one holotype. There may be any number of syntype.
The Syntypes are the Holotype and the Paratypes. Since 1999 the Holotype "should" be clearly stated in the publication regarding the description. If the author refers to "paratypes" should be referring to all the specimens (Holotype and the Paratypes) of the type series.
Dear Deneb Ortigosa. George Sangster mentioned in the initial question that the publication we are talking about clearly designates a holotype. The probem was that he also mentioned syntypes (instead of paratyes for additional specimens used in the description).
No, Deneb: syntypes are neither holotype nor paratypes, they are specimens included in the type-series when neither holotype nor paratypes have been designated, and even if somebody later designates one of these syntypes as a unique type, this will be the lectotype (not holotype) and the remaining syntypes bacome paralectotypes (not paratypes)!
At first, this author is a very bad taxonomist; second, the editor and reviewers are equally bad. However, there is a designation of a holotype, as requested by the Code. Paratypes are the specimens actually examined by the original author, and currently they need explicit designation. In the present case, the idiot designation of "syntypes" are equivalent to the designation of paratypes. In conclusion, the species has an holotype and paratypes, and it is perfectly valid and disponible.
It would be really interesting to read this publication. As long as I cannot see the exact specimen citation I have problems assessing what the author meant with holo- and syntypes. And I again stress the difference between syntypes and isotypes. If the author used numerous isotypes to describe the species, calling them paratypes would not be a good correction according to the code.
Thanks to all of you for commenting on my question.
This is the paper I was referring to:
Nardelli F (2015) A new Colobinae from the Sundiac region: the golden-crowned langur Presbytis johnaspinalli, sp. nov. International Zoo News 62: 323-336. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Francesco_Nardelli2/publication/283539651_A_new_Colobinae_from_the_Sundiac_region_The_Golden-crowned_Langur_Presbytis_johnaspinalli_sp_nov/links/56431a3408ae54697fb2c0f3.pdf
The description is problematic. Vincent Nijman already pointed out that these individuals are most likely Ebony Langurs (Trachypithecus auratus) which have been bleached by the traders to make them look more valuable.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295217233_Newly_described_golden-crowned_langurs_Presbytis_johnaspinalli_are_most_likely_partially_bleached_ebony_langurs_Trachypithecus_auratus
Article A new Colobinae from the Sundiac region: The Golden-crowned ...
Article Newly described golden-crowned langurs Presbytis johnaspinal...
Dear All,
I read your very interesting comments.
As Ulisses Caramaschi bluntly guessed I am a "bad taxonomist" for I am not a taxonomist and the "idiot designation" of syntypes clearly a mistake.
For your info. there is a second paper which may clarify some of your points.
Thank you.
Francesco
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296996918_A_new_Colobinae_from_the_Sundiac_region_The_Golden-crowned_Langur_Presbytis_johnaspinalli_sp_nov_Updated_report
Article A new Colobinae from the Sundiac region: The Golden-crowned ...
What do you, Tilo, mean by "isotype"? - I do not see such category in the ICZN!
I can only assume that Tilo is within the framework of botanical nomenclature:
From the ICN Code ("Melbourne Code" 2012) (http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art9) :
"9.4. An isotype is any duplicate of the holotype; it is always a specimen.
9.5. A syntype is any specimen cited in the protologue when there is no holotype, or any one of two or more specimens simultaneously designated in the protologue as types (see also Art. 40 Note 1). Reference to an entire gathering, or a part thereof, is considered citation of the included specimens. ."
And here an example from the older (1999 "St Louis Code") : "Ex. 4. In describing the Jurassic dinoflagellate species Nannoceratopsis triceras, Drugg (1978) designated a holotype (slide preparation) and one isotype (SEM preparation) from the same locality, age, and zone. He also cited two other specimens which are from a different locality, stage, and zone as "isotypes". Drugg's second use of the term isotype is an error and is to be corrected to "paratype"."
I think this can now rest. Syntypes is obviously a mistake for paratypes. I believe isotype is only used in botany. Perhaps it should be introduced to zoology.
the term used several paratypes have been designated - the term "syntypes" used (even though repeatedly) in the publication should be treated as a mistake.
The "problem" is surely solved: using syntype is, of course, only a small mistake which have no larger effects to nomenclature. But I fully agree with Luis: that there are still papers in the 21th century that still make such errors concerning zoological nomenclature. Do they have no editorial board ? Unbelievable !
Well, I agree with all people considering that the typical series of a newly described species must be formedfa by the holotype and paratypes. Concerning the Wilfried question about the "Editorial boards", I prefer do not comment more....
I agree with the view of most commentators that the term "syntype" in the cited paper should be treated as an error for "paratype".
Yes the holotype and "syntypes" constitute the type series, so the "syntypes" automatically become paratypes (Articles 72.4.1 and 72.4.6 of the Code).
See Steve Tracey's answer above. If you are not familiar with it, your should refer to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature which explains and governs such matters.
I agree with Steve Trace. Well Done Sir. Thats why we need a experienced person especially, in Taxonomy. Also, thanks to Eric Yensen.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology