Sometimes, the plates left by taxonomists are all the information we have about certain species of animals or plants described on past centuries. In some cases, the physical types are lost or destroyed, in other cases they were never collected.
Anyway, these taxonomic problems often require the designation of a neotype, and the original illustration of the species can be crucial to solve the problem. Unfortunately, not all taxonomists were (are) great illustrators, some did not draw muuuch better than a regular person.
So, besides qualitative subjective analysis of likeness, I want to know if there is any way to quantify the (dis)similarity between the illustrations and the pictured species.
I am posting in the perspective of typification of plant names.
As you know neotypification cannot be done if illustration is present which qualifies as original material.
Illuatration can be excellent from scientific point of view like Rpxburgh's drawings. Some illuatrations might be bit artistic. You will have to make out yourself with the help of the protologue, how much natural or artistic a drawing is. If it is not helping in the precise application of the name, you can go for epitypification.
No clue, but this article might serve as inspiration:
Domini et al. (2018) Dr Seuss and the real Lorax. Nature Ecology and Evolution
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0628-x
@Michael Loizides
Your statement "When an original illustration is available, then the illustration becomes the neotype and an epitype needs to be designated".
is totally misleading.. There is no question of designating a neotype when original material is present. The illustration has to be designated as the lectotype. If required, an epitype is required. Illustration can also be a holotype. Dr Greuter pointed out a rare case in RG where an illustration is the holotype of a Linnaean name.
From zoological perspective, a neotype is designated if there is an uncertainty with respect to the identity of the taxon. If the illustration is clear, and everybody agrees on ID of species, no NT needs to be designated. The presence of an illustration does not mandate it to be designated a LT. ET do not exist in zoology. Iconotypes exist, particularly with older (18th century) names, but are strongly biased against today. With a questionable illustration, a new specimen is designated as the neotype in zoology. In theory, you could use landmark techniques to compare illustration to specimen. However, if the illustration/description is sufficiently vague to necessitate a NT designation, there will be quite a bit of mis-match. That is where "first reviser's principle" comes in, and the basic principle of stability. The NT designation should maintain prevailing usage.
You seem to be new at this, so get feedback on the actual ms re your intended action by someone with good knowledge of the group. Poor subsequent type designations, such as LT, NT, type species, can really foul up things.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Filing