A new species was described one year ago. Unfortunately the author's have not deposited the holo- and isotypes to the herbaria as stated in the protologue. Whether this name is standing valid? If yes, then whether the photographic plate marked as Figure 1 in the protologue can be chosen as lectotype?
If written in the protologue that the type is deposited it is okay but in my opinion it should be a nom. inval. Actually there is no good alternative to stop this issue. So things are going on....
@subir sir, I have seen many such cases where the author of the taxa did not deposit the type specimen in the herbaria indicated in protologue. However, the name is still validly published according to ICN. What if the indicated type specimen exist but not deposited in the herbaria indicated? I think in such cases it is moral responsibility of the author to submit the specimen to the respective institutes. Yes, if there is no such specimen existing at all then one may call it "nom. inval.".
In my opinion, the name would not be nom. inval. as there is nothing in the Code about this moral responsibility of type deposition. If figure is included in the protologue, lectotype can be chosen. Otherwise anyone can keep this type of species under doubtful species in their work.
@Anand Kumar,
Thank you so much. I will select the photographic illustration (Figure 1) of the protologue as the lectotype.
in my opinion, selection of the figure as lectotype is dangerous. What if the specimen are available? Then the lectotype is still valid and the taxon is sticked to it, even if it lacks important characters which could be observed at the herbarium specimen. Would this lead to an epitypification of the original material?
@Bastin Steudel,
If the holotype or isotype is made available at a later date, it will automatically supersede the lectotype.
Dear Tapas Chakrabarty
could you give me the article of the code in this case? I haven't found this. Its only stated that the first author designating a lectotype needs to be followed. As long as the specimen can be considered as lost a lectotype designation of the illustration seems to be possible. In case of neotypification, I totally agree that this would be superseded by finding the specimen.
Another aspect for me is, that this seems to offer a "method" to trick the requirements of a specimen for taxon description. In worst case, somebody could draw something out of phyntasy and then claim to deposit the specimen on wich those drawing "were done" somewhere. But as this does not exist, the drawing can be validly selected as lectotype for a non-exosting taxon. I think such taxon descriptions were meant to be avoided by the requirement of a specimen as type.
the article is:
9.12. In lectotype designation, an isotype must be chosen if such exists, or otherwise a syntype or isosyntype if such exists. If no isotype, syntype or isosyntype is extant, the lectotype must be chosen from among the paratypes if such exist. If none of the above specimens exists, the lectotype must be chosen from among the uncited specimens and cited and uncited illustrations that comprise the remaining original material, if such exist.
Thank you very much
I now found that in 9.19 is stated that a lectotypisation "is superseded if (a) the holotype or, in the case of a neotype, any of the original material is found to exist"
I just haven't seen this before.