|
|
Post by nomad on Apr 9, 2016 14:56:50 GMT
I am guessing many members here will know the names attributed to the different type specimens. In case you are not sure here is a nice little guide. I wonder how many advertised paratypes are really that. A red label by a specimen looks so good to buy.  From Oxford!  |
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Apr 9, 2016 16:23:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Apr 10, 2016 16:26:00 GMT
Nowadays the original description of a taxon normally lists the number of paratypes with their data. Of course the data can be faked to correspond to the data listed, and there isn't much you can do about that. Of course the data label should normally be identical to that of the other type specimens, unless the paratype was never spread and a label was never printed for it.
It can be difficult to know whether the person who described it decided to cash in by printing paratype labels for more than the actual number of specimens in the type series and was selling fake 'paratypes' (not that anyone would do that ... would they???). It is generally not possible to actually count the number of 'paratypes' to check that there aren't too many in circulation.
In reality, however, paratypes are not at all important. They are supposed to represent the same taxon as the holotype but sometimes some or all of them are actually shown to be something else. The holotype/lectotype is the only name-bearing specimen (or the syntype series if a holotype was not designated in the original description), and paratypes are just supposed to represent variation of the taxon or be available for study purposes. They are only really of any potential 'value' in the case that the holotype is lost or destroyed and a neotype is needed to replace the lost holotype as the name-bearing type. In such a situation it is normal to give priority to paratypes for selection, but this is not mandatory, since the paratypes may not actually represent the same taxon.
Any 'type' of type not listed in the photo posted by Peter is not actually a valid type specimen, except that "allotype" (type of the opposite sex to the holotype) and "cotype" may represent paratypes, but not always. I have seen publications describing the female of a taxon previously named from a male and calling the new specimen the allotype. Of course it is not a type at all, just a specimen of the opposite sex, since it did not form part of the original specimen series used to describe the taxon.
As for the 'cotype', some authors back in the early days (eg. Bang Haas) called their paratypes cotypes, but they also put cotype labels on additional specimens from the same locality as the type series so they may not actually be true paratypes. If they were not actually part of the original type series they could be classed as 'topotypes' (specimens from the type locality), but this word has no additional meaning. If I went to the type locality of a taxon and collected a specimen from there today it would also be a 'topotype'.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Apr 10, 2016 17:13:08 GMT
note that only the holotype, neotype or lectotype have any nomeclatural value (as the only model), all others have no nomenclatural value
cotypes, types, syntypes, etc... (from old descriptions) must be updated asap by the designation of a lectotype (or neotype in exceptionnal case), unique reference
|
|
|
|
Post by deliasfanatic on Apr 10, 2016 17:36:39 GMT
Also, it's worth pointing out that genuine paratypes may not include printed labels. I have quite a few Delias paratypes that are positively genuine - received from the authors, and I'm listed as their owner in the original description - but printed labels were never made. Of course I've marked my labels appropriately, but they are handwritten and not "officially printed".
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Apr 10, 2016 19:49:28 GMT
Also, it's worth pointing out that genuine paratypes may not include printed labels. I have quite a few Delias paratypes that are positively genuine - received from the authors, and I'm listed as their owner in the original description - but printed labels were never made. Of course I've marked my labels appropriately, but they are handwritten and not "officially printed". Indeed, and handwritten labels are much harder to fake. Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Apr 10, 2016 20:29:43 GMT
note that only the holotype, neotype or lectotype have any nomeclatural value (as the only model), all others have no nomenclatural value cotypes, types, syntypes, etc... (from old descriptions) must be updated asap by the designation of a lectotype (or neotype in exceptionnal case), unique reference This is incorrect. Syntypes have the same name-bearing status as the holotype, neotype or lectotype, except that all the syntypes have equal name-bearing status. It is actually NOT ALLOWED to designate a lectotype from syntypes without a specific taxonomic reason (article 74.7.3), you can't just designate one of the syntypes as the lectotype purely in order to "update" the name-bearing status. A unique reference specimen is only necessary when not all of the syntypes actually belong to the same taxon and you need to fix the identity of the taxon name to a particular phenotype. Also in the case of an old description where the number of specimens was not stated in the original description, even if there is only a single known extant type specimen it should be assumed to be a syntype, rather than the holotype since there is no proof that the author of the taxon only had one specimen available. Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Apr 12, 2016 17:13:22 GMT
note that only the holotype, neotype or lectotype have any nomeclatural value (as the only model), all others have no nomenclatural value cotypes, types, syntypes, etc... (from old descriptions) must be updated asap by the designation of a lectotype (or neotype in exceptionnal case), unique reference This is incorrect. Syntypes have the same name-bearing status as the holotype, neotype or lectotype, except that all the syntypes have equal name-bearing status. It is actually NOT ALLOWED to designate a lectotype from syntypes without a specific taxonomic reason (article 74.7.3), you can't just designate one of the syntypes as the lectotype purely in order to "update" the name-bearing status. A unique reference specimen is only necessary when not all of the syntypes actually belong to the same taxon and you need to fix the identity of the taxon name to a particular phenotype. Also in the case of an old description where the number of specimens was not stated in the original description, even if there is only a single known extant type specimen it should be assumed to be a syntype, rather than the holotype since there is no proof that the author of the taxon only had one specimen available. Adam. I can't agree. The holotype, neotype or lectotype is unique and then unambigous. Syntypes may involve as much species as the number of syntypes existing. Then you can't put them on the same level and they don't have then an equal name-bearing status. A syntype as the potential of the lectotype, but only the potential. the existence of syntype series indicate that the work on the species (or group) is not completed and must be done. Of course for logical and scientific reasons, it must be done respecting some rules. Recent progress demonstrate how dangerous (if not quite impossible) it is to consider two specimen belonging to the same species and anyway, nobody can certify it is. The only exception being coming from same brood and even in this case it is necessar to have only one reference, very few syntypes fall in this caterory and a rule can't be efficient with such exception.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Apr 12, 2016 19:07:05 GMT
It's not a matter of opinion; The Code is perfectly clear on this, holotypes, lectotypes, neotypes and syntypes are primary types and all have equal status. A syntypic series is perfectly acceptable as a type series; many people have designated lectotypes when it is completely unnecessary and it's very annoying. There are very good reasons to select a lectotype from a syntypic series but this should only be done if it helps to clarify what the taxon represents when it is not clear from the syntypic series, e.g. if the syntypic series contains more than one species or subspecies or if the type locality needs to be fixed; otherwise the syntypic series should stand.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Apr 12, 2016 21:10:32 GMT
It's not a matter of opinion; The Code is perfectly clear on this, holotypes, lectotypes, neotypes and syntypes are primary types and all have equal status. A syntypic series is perfectly acceptable as a type series; many people have designated lectotypes when it is completely unnecessary and it's very annoying. There are very good reasons to select a lectotype from a syntypic series but this should only be done if it helps to clarify what the taxon represents when it is not clear from the syntypic series, e.g. if the syntypic series contains more than one species or subspecies or if the type locality needs to be fixed; otherwise the syntypic series should stand. Bob unfortuntelly for me this is in English, I had prefer to defend in French. it is not a question of legal status ... i am not qualified for that (and laws change with the time). It is a question of logic. How can be a series more unambiguous (or equal) than one specimen ? syntypes are an old heritage and no more actual. you speak like you ignore groups that are not so obvious as the minority of well known group as Papilionidae or Colias. Try to do that with any moth or Lycaenidae or Mylothris, or some Colotis, where it is impossible to keep the syntypes series to fix the indentity of a species.
Whar I don't understand is "many people have designated lectotypes when it is completely unnecessary and it's very annoying" ... why annoying ? to be clearer ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Apr 12, 2016 21:54:30 GMT
"Try to do that with any moth or Lycaenidae or Mylothris, or some Colotis, where it is impossible to keep the syntypes series to fix the indentity of a species."
That is exactly what the Code is in favour of doing, allowing taxonomists to designate lectotypes when they have a good reason to make such action necessary.
It is quite simple why one of a series of syntypes should not be designated the lectotype without a good reason. As soon as a lectotype is designated all of the other syntypes become paralectotypes and permanently lose their name-bearing status. This is very difficult to overturn unless the designated specimen can be shown not to belong to the original syntypic series. So, if a taxonomist choses the wrong syntype as lectotype because they did not realise it matters, we are all stuck with it.
Right now some people may think that it is a good idea to designate a single specimen as the name-bearing type for each taxon name, but just remember that because this action is effectively irreversible doing this in unnecessary situations may well cause serious problems in future when our ability to distinguish taxa is even better than it is nowadays. Not so many years ago no-one could have imagined comparing DNA of individual specimens to distinguish species, and probably not so far in the future the technology will have progressed even further. If it is then discovered that, because a syntype from all known taxa was designated lectotype without a taxonomic reason to do so, more problems in nomenclatorial stability have been created than were actually solved.
No, it is a very good idea only to designate a lectotype from syntypes when really necessary - don't close doors to the future - I expect that this is what bobw means by "annoying".
English or French should make absolutely no difference, the meaning of the Code is (or at least is supposed to be) the same in every language that it has been translated into. I understand that you may find it more difficult to put your arguments into English, but it really doesn't matter what you or I think or want to argue. What matters is the clear instructions to taxomomists in the Code. If we don't follow these instructions it causes problems for the taxonomists of the future.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Apr 13, 2016 5:04:26 GMT
English or French should make absolutely no difference, the meaning of the Code is (or at least is supposed to be) the same in every language that it has been translated into. I understand that you may find it more difficult to put your arguments into English, but it really doesn't matter what you or I think or want to argue. What matters is the clear instructions to taxomomists in the Code. If we don't follow these instructions it causes problems for the taxonomists of the future. Adam. I didn't speak about the code itself. Strict law rest the law even when "annoying". It was speaking about defend an opinion. The matter for me is not to discuss the code (I am just a user and scientific, not lawyer nor legislator) but to debate about a specific point, scientific and reference value of the "... types categories" existing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Apr 13, 2016 14:18:09 GMT
That was why I said "I understand that you may find it more difficult to put your arguments into English, but it really doesn't matter what you or I think or want to argue".
The Code and its predecessor was written and edited over approximately the last 100 years and incorporates the combined knowledge and experience of the writers. It reflects the problems that were found as a result of early changes to the Code, that in some cases caused issues with old names. This is why much of the Code contains date related articles, to ensure that changes to the Code do not have serious effects on the status of older names.
With regard to the scientific and reference value of syntypes, these are the historical name-bearing specimens, and the Code instructs us only to change the status of these specimens if we have a good taxonomic reason to do so. It may not seem "neat and tidy" to have more than one specimen with equal name-bearing status, but "cleaning this up" unnecessarily may cause serious problems in future.
For example it seems that the lectotype of a Linnaean Parides species, designated not that long ago basically to "clean up" Linnaean types, may well have been incorrectly chosen by the person who designated it, and the specimen appears to actually belong to another species. In this case we either ignore the problem and continue to use the names we know the two species by, pretending that the lectotype actually is the same species, or someone will have to go through the process of applying to the ICZN Commission to ask them to set aside the lectotype and replace it with another specimen under their plenary powers. If a lectotype had not been designated there would actually be no problem at all.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Apr 13, 2016 15:01:32 GMT
the wall of language is too big ... It seems we speak about two different things.
the incompetence of some to choose lectotype in few cases doesn't must conceal the big amount of cases where the designation is necessary and useful.
in your case the fact that someone wrongly choose a lectotype and provide problems proove that it is necessar to fix (correctly of course) a lectotype. It seems that this must have happened because of ambigous identity of this Parides.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Apr 13, 2016 15:42:37 GMT
"the incompetence of some to choose lectotype in few cases doesn't must conceal the big amount of cases where the designation is necessary and useful."
I agree, and indeed this is exactly what the Code DOES allow. If there is a good taxonomic reason to designate a lectotype from a syntypic series then this is definitely necessary and useful. When the syntypes are shown to comprise more than one taxon (species or subspecies) it is necessary to choose one of them as the single name-bearing lectotype in order to fix the name to one taxon. It is very important to be extremely careful which specimen is chosen, to ensure that the lectotype actually does represent the exact taxon that everyone has historically known it by.
The work I mentioned above was a large general paper on the butterfly names of Linnaeus, and not just looking at the Parides. The authors were not sufficiently expert on Parides to realise that there were 2 species among the syntypes, and chose one of the wrong species in error. This is quite easy to explain, since the syntypes are females, and they are so very similar. The only reason that this problem was noticed is because the two species differ slightly in hindwing venation, rather than colour pattern which is almost identical.
Another example of such an error is the lectotype of Lamproptera curius, designated well before many subspecies of Lamproptera were even discovered. Authors from the mid and late 1800s and afterwards all followed the designation without actually realising that the lectotype is a female of Lamproptera meges annamiticus. This is basically a case of misapplication of the original name, rather than choosing the wrong specimen as lectotype, but it has the same effect. In theory we need to swap the species names round, calling Lamproptera meges Lamproptera curius and what everyone knows as Lamproptera curius would have to be called Lamproptera libelluloides, which is the next available name for the species. When I published this information I stated that this confusing name change should not be adopted, the established classification should be maintained, and an application to the ICZN Commission will be made to ask them to fix the name to the species as currently recognised. This would involve the Commission agreeing to set aside the lectotype and designating a neotype that really is a specimen of Lamproptera curius from the approximate original type locality.
Adam.
|
|
From Oxford!
