There is a 18th century species that has been described from cultivation. The author also cited an old collector of whom he had a specimen in his own collection (the only clearly original specimen in his collection, I checked all of them). The species author's collection is now deposited in an herbarium. However, it turns out that the name has been lectotypified but the lectotype is placed to a different herbarium, which, most likely has never been visited by the species author.
Of course, lectotypification must be followed, except for the case that "the holotype or, in the case of a neotype, any of the original material is rediscovered" (Art. 9.17). If there is only one specimen (remaining) in the species author's collection, can it (1) be regarded as holotype and therefore must supersede the lectotype or (2) is the lectotypification superseded because a collection of a higher rank is available or (3) is the published lectotypification to be followed anyway?
Indeed, you can claim that this old lectotypification was wrong. In my opinion, you have discovered the true holotype of the species. You can search for similar cases in the files of the journal Taxon.
Dear Norbert,
If you can prove that the author used only one specimen, that has to accepted as the holotype. You have stated that the name has been already lectotypified.
You can supersede that lectotypification according to the following Article:
The Art. says: 9.19 The author who first designates (Art. 7.9 and 7.10) a lectotype or a neotype in conformity with Art. 9.11-13 must be followed, but that choice is superseded if (a) the holotype or, in the case of a neotype, any of the original material is rediscovered; the choice may also be superseded if one can show that (b) it is in serious conflict with the protologue and another element is available that is not in conflict with the protologue, or that (c) it is contrary to Art. 9.14.
Is the designated lectotype a duplicate of the holotype? If not, you should mention in a note that the designated lectotype is not at all an original material.
Best wishes,
Subir.
The problem is to prove that the plant in the species author's collection is the holotype. The species was described from living material, and there are two specimens in the current herbarium from that era. One is from a garden abroad (different country) with a given origin but the protologue does not mention the origin of the cultivated material that the species author had at hand. There is even no way to prove that this cultivar specimen was even available to the species author, it is just from the same era. It is not likely to be accepted as original material. The other specimen (the supposed holotype) is the above-mentioned herbarium and shows all characters mentioned in the protologue except for parts that have been taken from the living material.
The other tricky point is that original collector published the species before but pre-Linnean, so the name is not valid. The actual species author cites only an indirect reference (the one given on the supposed holotype) to that published pre-Linnean description of that species. Therefore the lectotype would have been designated to the actual iso(syn-???)type.
Dear Norbert,
It would be better if you can give the actual names but might not be willing to do so till you publish the typification.
Still you can consider the following:
• 7.7 A name of a new taxon validly published solely by reference to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis (Art. 38.1(a)) is to be typified by an element selected from the entire context of the validating description or diagnosis, unless the validating author has definitely designated a different type, but not by an element explicitly excluded by the validating author (see also Art. 7.8).
o Ex.9. Since the name Adenanthera bicolor Moon (1824) is validated solely by reference to the description associated with an illustration devoid of analysis, “Rumph. amb. 3: t. 112“, cited by Moon, the lectotype of the name, in the absence of the specimen(s) on which the validating description was based, is the illustration associated with that description, i.e. t. 112 (in Rumphius, Herb. Amboin. 3. 1743). It is not the specimen, at Kew, collected by Moon and labelled “Adenanthera bicolor“, since Moon did not definitely designate the latter as the type.
If you think it is the holotype, then there is no problem. If you believe it is most probably the holotype but not absolutely sure, you can say lectotype here designated, if it is not the holotype.
Kindly see the attached publication of Dr. McNeill.
However, it seems to me that it is desirable to designate a lectotype because the original author has taken some characters from living material too.
Subir
I rather wouldn't go into details. But it turns out that the lectotypification is not effected anyways because the author(s) forgot the phrase “designated here” or an equivalent.
If the lectotypification was done on or after 1 January 2001, I fully support your decision.
Best of luck.
Most of he relevant rules have been mentioned already; but the really important statement tat has been made is that you cannot judge the case with confidence unless you examine the concrete circumstances of the publication of that individual name.
For instance: you refer to the herbarium of the author. But which author: of the name or of the validating description (accepting, as you infer, that they are different)?
Accepting, as is reasonable, that there is no holotype, the next question to be asked is, have any specimens been cited in the context of the validating description and/or the protologue of the name? Is so, they are syntypes and take priority in the designation of a lectotype. But in the 18th century it is rare to find concrete specimens cited.
Other than for cited specimens (holotype, syntypes, paratypes), duplicates not seen by the author of the validating description are not part of the original material as defined in Art. 9.3. If the specimen you have in mind is in the herbarium of the author of the description your case is strong, as that author then will have seen/used the specimen (but not the previously designated lectotype). Otherwise, it may be difficult or impossible to demonstrate that the description author has seen the specimen (unless of course if it was annotated by him), so there is a strong presumption that there is no original material at all, and the current "lectotype" is in fact a neotype -- and as such must stand.
Unfortunately, using actual names publically when one writes a long article is a dangerous thing. I know of some cases in which lots of work became useless suddenly because somebody else was quicker (I find it very sad that it's apparently important to think of such things). Breaking down all the small facts and submit them one by one to publish quicker might be possible but in my opinion, this is not a good thing either because data become very fragmented.
Apart from that, I find the question of what "original material" is not that obvious and easy. Of course, what the author has definitively seen is original material and the first (only) choice for lectotypification. But the code also says "the isotypes or isosyntypes of the name irrespective of whether such specimens were seen by either the author of the validating description or diagnosis or the author of the name" (Art. 9.3 c). This means that (true) duplicates of material that an author has seen may also be regarded as original material, even if the the author did not see the material him-/herself. This was exactly my problem here, i.e. whether material without collecting data (as it was common back then) may be regarded as duplicate (hence also original material) and thus available for lectotypification.
Nevertheless, my problem was solved much easier because of a technical mistake in the "lectotypification" process.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology