|
Post by bobw on Apr 19, 2016 7:01:48 GMT
I've been offline for a few days so haven't been able to contribute here; anyway, Adam nicely summed up what I wanted to say. Certainly I've nothing against lectotype designations if done for the right reasons, indeed I've done it myself on several occasions, even neotype designations can sometimes be necessary. The main reason to do it is when the syntypic series comprises mixed material, it is then necessary to fix the name-bearing specimen, but the lectotype should be chosen very carefully (c.f. Adam's Parides example). However, The Code makes it clear that lectotypes should not be designated as part of curatorial work - only through genuine research; unfortunately too many people have automatically designated a lectotype whenever they come across a syntypic series so the paralectotypes lose their name-bearing status.
It is absolutely vital that everyone should follow The Code. Without these rules taxonomy becomes a free-for-all and chaos would reign.
Bob
|
|