Recently I submitted a manuscript to a reputed journal relating to lectotypification of a Linnaean name. A reviewer corrected the manuscript by inserting the following sentence: "The plant Linnaeus used as the holotype was collected by Hermann in Ceylon which is found in the Hermann herbarium, falls well within the circumscription of ............. and is good-enough to identify the species unambiguously..."
I am fully puzzled. Please clarify. How a "plant" can have a holotype, that too used by Linnaeus?
Dear Tapas,
The Linnean type specimens have been exhaustively studies in a large scale project let by Charlie Jarvis. As a result, you can find a comprehensive list of the typification of Linnean taxa at:
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/linnaean-typification/databasehome.html
The website gives you also links to critical publications until 2004.
Of course, it is also possible to contact Charlie Jarvis directly.
Another option is to contact the curator of the Linnean collections at the Linnean Society see https://www.linnean.org and http://linnean-online.org/linnaean_herbarium.html
The problem is arguably that a lot of this outstanding work has been frequently ignored by plant taxonomist.
Dr Greuter once in a RG posting said:
Only one Linnaean name has holotype. I do not remember the name. Kindly contact him.
Thank you @Subir. I feel that the journals should be very careful about picking up a reviewer.
.... but you kindly ask Dr Greuter for confirming what I said.
Thank you.
I think what he meant that the plant (specimen) based on which Linnaeus named it was collected by Hermann in Ceylon (Srilanka) deposited in Hermann herbarium. So, that specimen would serve as the holotype. Unless that specimen is reported to have been destroyed or damaged or is devoid of essential characters for identification of the species, there is no need to assign any lectotype specimen. Hope this clarifies the review. So, you need to specify the reasons why a lectotype was required to be assigned in this case.
@Subir, thank you once again for an authentic clarification.
@Manoj Chandran, please note that a reviewer should not misguide an author and in this case the journal did not bother to send my manuscript to an expert on nomenclature (although I furnished names of three possible reviewers) and this raises doubts as to the credibility of the journal itself though being published from a very very reputed organization of Botanical research.
With renewed thanks for the clarification.
I would like to add one more sentence. The second reviewer of the paper recommend its acceptance and he/she only corrected a spelling mistake and asked to change the pattern of the references!
Tapas Chakrabarty It would be better if you could verify the reviewer's comments with the Hermann herbarium. It you do not agree with the reviewer's comments, you can inform the journal with reasons for dissent. Then the journal editors will give their decision.
@ Manoj Chandran. Please note that if the holotype is devoid of essential characters for precise application of the name, an epitype has to be designated and not a lectotype.
Kindly see Art. 9.9. An epitype is a specimen or illustration selected to serve as an interpretative type when the holotype, lectotype, or previously designated neotype, or all original material associated with a validly published name, is demonstrably ambiguous and cannot be critically identified for purposes of the precise application of the name to a taxon. Designation of an epitype is not effected unless the holotype, lectotype, or neotype that the epitype supports is explicitly cited (see Art. 9.20).
This posting has, however, no relation with the question asked here.
Moreover, when I am citing an Article of ICN, there is no need of detailed explanation of the statement, e.g. when I wrote "original material" and cited the relevant Article of the Code, a reviewer should not ask for full explanation.
This way we have to start writing a paper even with full explanation of the terms such as holotype, synonym, later homonym, basionym and so on.
As Dr. Prado has pointed out, it is difficult to find a good reviewer for typification of the Linnean names.
Tapas Chakrabarty I am not saying that your manuscript was faulty or not, neither I am commenting whether the reviewer was right or wrong. Every journal conducts independent reviews and communicates the reviewer's comments to the author. If the author is not agreeing with the reviewer's comments, he can give his dissent note with proper reasons thereof. The journal generally considers such dissent note before accepting or rejecting it for publication.
I hope the editors/reviewers will disagree. I have very bitter experience in this regard. If you point out a mistake (I had to do so to exclude that Linnean holotype) of the reviewer, they get furious and reject your paper immediately. Awaiting the same.
Only one benefit, my paper is so much improved now that in case it is rejected by the present journal, it will qualify for any international journal.
Dear Tapas,
The Linnean type specimens have been exhaustively studies in a large scale project let by Charlie Jarvis. As a result, you can find a comprehensive list of the typification of Linnean taxa at:
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/linnaean-typification/databasehome.html
The website gives you also links to critical publications until 2004.
Of course, it is also possible to contact Charlie Jarvis directly.
Another option is to contact the curator of the Linnean collections at the Linnean Society see https://www.linnean.org and http://linnean-online.org/linnaean_herbarium.html
The problem is arguably that a lot of this outstanding work has been frequently ignored by plant taxonomist.
Only experienced workers typify Linnean names and they should be aware of 'Order out of Chaos'.
Charlie Jarvis still works at BM but he has retired. His response to queries on typification of Linnaean names is not as regular as before. He has helped me a lot and I am grateful to him for that.
Respected Dr. Prado,
I fully agree.
Recently I submitted a short article to Taxon on the lectotypification of the Linnean name Laurus cassia and the paper was outright rejected on the ground that they are at present being flooded with such papers on Linnean types which lacks greater audience. They asked me if I can work out the entire thread on Laurus then it will be considered. This indicates that with present opportunities, which were unthinkable even ten years back, there has been a resurgence of critical studies on nomenclature. Persons expertising on particular groups and with the apt guidance of nomenclature experts of world repute, it has become easier for us to clarify at least some of the confusions and ambiguities encountered in the group/s we are working.
Got it. It is illustration as holotype of a Linnaean name
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Typification_of_plant_name-illustration_as_lectotype_specimen_as_neotype_or_lectotype_epitype
A portion from the aforementioned link.
One of the rare example of a holotype illustration I am aware of is the type of Calycanthus praecox L. (nom Chimonanthus praecox (L.) Link), based entirely on a prior illustration by Kaempfer, cited by Linnaeus in the protologue, where he also stated that he had not seen the plant itself (“Ignota mihi”).
Dear Tapas da,
I believe if the sole specimen is available or traced, it can called 'perhaps holotype' not 'holotype' as we are not aware with other duplicates (if exists) or referred by the species author (in your case 'Linnaeus').
Thanks!!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Classical Philology
- Manuscripts