Post by Adam Cotton on Sept 13, 2018 11:52:29 GMT
Following the recent destruction by fire of the Brazilian National Museum and its major collections the ICZN has written guidelines for Neotype designation.
Here is the statement posted on Taxacom and the ICZN e-mail lists:
Hi, all.
Among the things that have arisen in the aftermath of the terrible fire
this month in Brazil's Museu Nacional - a tragedy that affects many in
the global scientific community - are numerous public comments regarding
the loss of the thousands of holotype specimens housed in Rio, and how
difficult it will be to replace them all. The latter assertion -
implying or claiming that *all *of the lost types will need to be
replaced - is inaccurate, and those of us serving on the ICZN
(International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) feel that it is
essential to provide accurate information to counteract some of these
well-intentioned but slightly misleading comments. Our aim is not to
dismiss the concerns of those who are worried about the consequences of
losing so many type specimens, but to reassure people that only a
*fraction* of those lost types actually require replacement, in no small
part due to the commendable foresight of curators and researchers who
recorded digital images of many of those types.
Accordingly, I and a number of other Commissioners have drafted an
advisory document outlining what the ICZN Code actually says regarding
the replacement of lost types, emphasizing that the situation
surrounding each individual type must be taken into account, and *only
in exceptional cases* is it possible to designate a replacement
(neotype); doing so requires very explicit justification and
documentation. It is entirely likely that only a small fraction of the
holotypes that have been lost will fulfill the necessary criteria, thus
greatly reducing the burden on the taxonomic community. The task will
not be easy, but it will not be as comprehensive or labor-intensive as
many have assumed.
For those of you who have an interest in this matter, please see
docs.google.com/document/d/1Ef0H0pwnjJW5B5thzp-Fs5J3qEomuJyoEvKQd4hx-Lk/edit?usp=sharing
There are, inevitably, parts of the Code that can be easily overlooked,
easily misinterpreted, or fairly subjective. The purpose of this
particular document is to serve for clarification and as a practical
guideline. It does not, in any way, supercede the "legislative" text of
the Code itself, which is appended - unaltered - at the end of the
document, and also available at
www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/ in its entirety. We would
urge people in particular to note the various provisions of Article
75.3, especially 75.3.6 and 75.3.7.
Please do bear in mind that the rules concerning neotype designations
are explicitly intended to ensure a measure of quality control over the
process, and prevent abuses of the system; every one of these rules is
in place for a good reason. Most of these rules have been unchanged (or
even slightly relaxed) since at least the 1961 edition of the Code, if
not earlier, and they have served the community well thus far.
If you read through the document and still are uncertain about anything,
I and the other Commissioners are generally available to answer
questions. We would certainly prefer to spend a little effort to address
taxonomists' concerns *before* any types are replaced, rather than after.
PLEASE do pass this message on to colleagues who might benefit from this
information, including other mailing lists or social media groups where
this topic is of broad interest. This document may eventually be
published, but broad dissemination of the information *now* will still
be beneficial, especially given that publications have a much smaller
reach than mailing lists and social media, and also given how quickly,
and widely, inaccurate assumptions and claims have already been distributed.
Sincerely, Doug Yanega
--
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314
Here is the statement posted on Taxacom and the ICZN e-mail lists:
Hi, all.
Among the things that have arisen in the aftermath of the terrible fire
this month in Brazil's Museu Nacional - a tragedy that affects many in
the global scientific community - are numerous public comments regarding
the loss of the thousands of holotype specimens housed in Rio, and how
difficult it will be to replace them all. The latter assertion -
implying or claiming that *all *of the lost types will need to be
replaced - is inaccurate, and those of us serving on the ICZN
(International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) feel that it is
essential to provide accurate information to counteract some of these
well-intentioned but slightly misleading comments. Our aim is not to
dismiss the concerns of those who are worried about the consequences of
losing so many type specimens, but to reassure people that only a
*fraction* of those lost types actually require replacement, in no small
part due to the commendable foresight of curators and researchers who
recorded digital images of many of those types.
Accordingly, I and a number of other Commissioners have drafted an
advisory document outlining what the ICZN Code actually says regarding
the replacement of lost types, emphasizing that the situation
surrounding each individual type must be taken into account, and *only
in exceptional cases* is it possible to designate a replacement
(neotype); doing so requires very explicit justification and
documentation. It is entirely likely that only a small fraction of the
holotypes that have been lost will fulfill the necessary criteria, thus
greatly reducing the burden on the taxonomic community. The task will
not be easy, but it will not be as comprehensive or labor-intensive as
many have assumed.
For those of you who have an interest in this matter, please see
docs.google.com/document/d/1Ef0H0pwnjJW5B5thzp-Fs5J3qEomuJyoEvKQd4hx-Lk/edit?usp=sharing
There are, inevitably, parts of the Code that can be easily overlooked,
easily misinterpreted, or fairly subjective. The purpose of this
particular document is to serve for clarification and as a practical
guideline. It does not, in any way, supercede the "legislative" text of
the Code itself, which is appended - unaltered - at the end of the
document, and also available at
www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/ in its entirety. We would
urge people in particular to note the various provisions of Article
75.3, especially 75.3.6 and 75.3.7.
Please do bear in mind that the rules concerning neotype designations
are explicitly intended to ensure a measure of quality control over the
process, and prevent abuses of the system; every one of these rules is
in place for a good reason. Most of these rules have been unchanged (or
even slightly relaxed) since at least the 1961 edition of the Code, if
not earlier, and they have served the community well thus far.
If you read through the document and still are uncertain about anything,
I and the other Commissioners are generally available to answer
questions. We would certainly prefer to spend a little effort to address
taxonomists' concerns *before* any types are replaced, rather than after.
PLEASE do pass this message on to colleagues who might benefit from this
information, including other mailing lists or social media groups where
this topic is of broad interest. This document may eventually be
published, but broad dissemination of the information *now* will still
be beneficial, especially given that publications have a much smaller
reach than mailing lists and social media, and also given how quickly,
and widely, inaccurate assumptions and claims have already been distributed.
Sincerely, Doug Yanega
--
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314
