Hello everyone, i have one doubt while lectotypifying some taxa. In my case syntypes consist of several different collections (heterogenous elements). While selecting lectotype i selected one suitable specimen as lectotype and duplicate of same collection as isolectotype. What would be better to write them as lectoparatype or residual syntypes or simply syntypes for remaining different collections (remaining syntypes of different collections).
The term paralectotype was used earlier by several taxonomists in different literature (even in some publications in Taxon). Technically the term is not wrong. However, in the present Code (ICN) you can't find the term, even in the glossary of the Code. Further, designating a particular specimen (from all original materials) as lectotype does not change the status of other original materials. So, just designate the most appropriate specimen as lectotype, mention it's duplicate as isolectotype (because the term 'iso' can be used for any duplicate specimen) and the remaining (non-duplicate) original material(s) as syntype.
the first answer is correct. However in our database I prefer to use paralectotype(s) for the remaining syntype(s) to make clear, that someone already lectotypified the taxa.
Dear Durgesh Verma,
Please see:
Flann, Christina, Nicholas J. Turland and Anna M. Monro. (2014) Report on botanical nomenclature—Melbourne 2011. XVIII International Botanical Congress, Melbourne: Nomenclature Section, 18–22 July 201. PhytoKeys 41: 1–289
Kindly go through the detailed discussion on paralectotype or lectoparatype given (pp. 55–57) in the aforesaid publication. I have also attached the full publication in PhytoKeys.
Malécot’s proposal
McNeill explained that although the day before had concluded Art. 9, there was an additional proposal linked to what had been discussed and Malécot would present it.
Malécot summarized that, the day before, Prop. FF had been accepted as a Recommendation dealing with isoepitype, isoneotype and so on. This was remaining from the Vienna Congress, when there were four terms referred to the Editorial Committee to be introduced into Art. 9 as a Note. These words were the three in Prop. FF and the fourth word was “paralectotype”. Thus he proposed an amendment to Art. 9 in order to introduce a new Recommendation that would read: “A paralectotype is a specimen cited in the protologue that was not subsequently chosen as a lectotype and that is not an isolectotype nor a paratype. Syntypes not chosen as a lectotype become paralectotypes after lectotypification”.
McNeill requested clarification as to whether Malécot was implying that they would cease to be syntypes and would now become paralectotypes, so therefore would not be in the normal sequence for future lectotypification.Christina Flann et al. / PhytoKeys 41: 1–289 (2014)
Malécot replied that this would be from the time of lectotypification.
McNeill pointed out that the Code specified that if a lectotype was lost or destroyed then there was a sequence in which material should be selected, and what was suggested was not part of that sequence. He wanted to know if they would lose their status as a result of this.
Malécot replied that they would not lose their status.
McNeill was not convinced and suggested that some other proposals would be required to ensure that they did not lose their status.
Malécot had checked when there was a problem with a lectotype, and concluded that it did not seem to be a problem.
Knapp asked if there were five people to second the new proposal [for a new Art. 9.6bis]. [There were; the proposal was seconded and supported.]
Redhead was totally confused by what the status would be.
Gandhi encountered such items frequently as part of the International Plant Name Index project and his understanding was that in the past there was a debate whether to call the residues paralectotype or lectoparatype. After discussion with his colleagues, both at Harvard and New York, they believed that whatever was left after selection of the lectotype should continue to be called syntypes.
Bill Barker hoped that these would remain syntypes, just as a lectotype was a syntype. He felt that the solution to the problem that had just been raised was to change the proposed wording to: “a paralectotype is a syntype”. This was also considered useful instead of “other syntypes” in publications. Having a category to put on a det. slip, which says “this is a paralectotype” by the person lectotypifying at the time, would be very useful.
Buck thought “once a syntype, always a syntype”, unless it was raised up. He pointed out that a paratype was not a real type and that paralectotype, adding the prefix ‘para’ to a real type, was a source of confusion.
Barrie agreed with Bill Barker that this was not a good idea and that adding a new term was only going to confuse people. He felt this attempted to change the status of specimens that already had a proper name. He had experience with people trying to tell him that they had to change their syntypes to paralectotypes now, when the term did not even exist in the Code. He also pointed out that people had tried to introduce the term as far back as the ’70s. He thought it was better to leave it out and keep calling them syntypes. He also made the point that the addition would have to be an Article because it involved putting a new definition into the Code. It was proposed as an Article but Malécot had suggested making it a Recommendation, in which case it would have no force anyway and it would just result in more confusion.
Marhold was not sure that paralectotype was the right term but definitely wanted some term for what remained from syntypes after lectotypification, as they were no longer syntypes.
McNeill stated that they were.
Marhold repeated that they were not.56 Report on botanical nomenclature—Melbourne 2011: Art. 9
McNeill elaborated that under the Code they were syntypes and remained syntypes and stressed that this was important from the point of view of how a lectotype was chosen, should the existing lectotype be lost or destroyed. His concern was that this proposal would change that sequence and therefore introducing it would require some other alteration elsewhere although Bill Barker had pointed out a way in which this could be obviated.
Marhold did not feel that this interpretation was unanimous because he had encountered several opinions, as editor of a journal, that if a lectotype had been chosen, there were no longer syntypes in the true sense.
Sennikov found paralectotype to be a confusing term, for two reasons. First, as had been pointed out already, he felt that “para” belonged to quite a low level of type; a paratype was not a real type. Second, several people he knew believed that after lectotypification the other syntypes lost their value so much that they could even be thrown away without any danger to future nomenclature, because they were deemed to have lost their importance at the moment of lectotypification. He argued that lectotypifications can be overturned very easily, should some mistake be found, and such mistakes were not that rare. For example it may be found that the original material was heterogeneous and so the syntype that was selected as lectotype was not the best choice. He felt that, in principle, lectotypifications could be subject to revision and the suggested new terminology may exacerbate this erroneous practice.
Janssen requested that the relevant text in the Code be shown as there seemed to be confusion about what happened to the remaining syntypes after lectotypification. [Art. 9.4 was displayed.]
McNeill confirmed that there was no suggestion that a syntype ceased to be a syntype because of some other action.
Lendemer called the question.
Knapp asked the Section to vote on whether or not to go to a vote. [There was a sufficient majority in favour of voting.]
Malécot’s proposal was rejected.
Thus as per ICN you cannot use these terms.
With best wishes,
Subir Bandyopadhyay.
You have mentioned 'In my case syntypes consist of several different collections (heterogenous elements)'.
See • 9A.4 When two or more heterogeneous elements were included in or cited with the original description or diagnosis, the lectotype should be so selected as to preserve current usage. In particular, if another author has already segregated one or more elements as other taxa, one of the remaining elements should be designated as the lectotype provided that this element is not in conflict with the original description or diagnosis (see Art. 9.19).
Your use of 'heterogenous elements' is not correct. In the sense you have used: 'Heterogenous elements' mean that the syntypes represent two or more different taxa but what I feel, that you intended to say 'syntypes consist of several different collections' only and they belong to the same taxon' .
Most of what has been written is true. In particular, (a) syntypes do not lose their status by lectotype designation (the designated type, too, remains a syntype); and (b) many feel it useful to refer to the "remaining syntypes" (more correctly: the non-chosen syntypes) by special term; (c) the term paralectotype (not "lectoparatype"!) is linguistically correct, rather widely used and generally well understood.
The statement "Malécot’s proposal was rejected. Thus as per ICN you cannot use these terms" is misleading. There is nothing in the Code to discourage, let alone forbid, use of the term, even though it does not have official status. At a future Congress, when discussion is less confused than it was in Melbourne, it may still admit paralectotypes in the Code.
The reason why I would welcome a clear, codified definition is: there is a slight ambiguity in the present use of the term. I have seen it applied at times to "original specimens other than the lectotype". Such usage is incorrect and should be avoided (but then, it is also frequent to see original specimens referred to as "syntypes" even when they were not cited upon valid publication of the name – contrary to the explicit definition of "syntype" in the Code).
Dear Dr. Greuter,
Thank you very much for your view. A few years back a reviewer objected when I used the term paralectotype in the MS of a paper. I consulted Dr. McNeill and he informed me that term is technically incorrect and should not be used. Thus the term paralectotype will only come up in published papers if the reviewer or editor raises no question. Personally I like it. It gives a sense that the name has been already lectotypified. ICN is independent of ICZN. Still I would like to mention that it is in ICZN where paralectotype has been defined as follows:
paralectotype
Each specimen of a former syntype series remaining after the designation of a lectotype [Art. 72.1.3, Recommendation 74F].
73.2.2. Specimens that were syntypes prior to the valid designation of a lectotype [Art. 74] are no longer syntypes after such designation; by that action they become lectotype and paralectotypes (see Recommendation 74F); the latter have no name-bearing function and do not regain status as syntypes if the lectotype is lost or destroyed.
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.
I like the definition of paralectotype in ICZN but not Aricles 73.2.2. and 74.1.3.
given therein.
I hope paralectotype gets a status in future in ICN but not in the same way as given in ICZN. Then we will be able to use the term freely.
With regards,
Subir Bandyopadhyay.
Thank u Dr. Greuter, Zimmer, Majumdar, Bhattacharjee & Bandyopadhyay for your valuable suggestions.
The answer is much more simple. According to the current edition of the Code, in its Article 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 [...]; those specimens then become paralectotypes".
From syntypes can select only one lectotype (his doublet will be named isolectotyp). All other specimens will stay syntypes. The term "lectoparatyp" does not exist.
There exists a lot of current usage of the term paralectotype, but since that term is not defined in the botanical code, and since syntypes always stay syntypes, I prefer to register such specimens as syntypes. Paralectotype might be slightly more informative (it is a syntype, but another syntype has been chosen as lectotype); but it is less known and might also add confusion for those that do not know the term, or use it "incorrectly" (since it is not defined in the code one can argue what is correct and incorrect)
Dear Durgesh..
The ICN has never provided any special term to address those syntype left after selecting lectotype... however the use and addition of term lectoparatype/paralectotype was well debated in 1980s... according to my opinion... you should not use any term in typification practice other than those provided in the Code... if you still have ang doubt in typification..
You can feel free to discuss directry through mail...
Reach me at [email protected]
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology