[Nhcoll-l] Valuation of holotypes, syntypes and figured specimens

[Neil Clark]

Thank you Doug and Dirk,

All very useful comments which I will take to our collections team who deal with loans. Thanks also to all the others who provided comments, all of which will be of great help in arguing for a reasonable insurance valuation to allow the research to be undertaken. It is a strange collection with conditions attached to the original bequest which states that the material cannot be loaned out except to the NHM in London if they have a better microscope (which is most definitely the case!). The material is all palaeobotanical so would be subject to the ICBN. The type locality is still extant, so no problem with new material.

I realise that there are probably slight differences in interpretation between the ICZN and the ICBN, but hopefully it will never come to the situation where more material has to be collected.

Cheers,

Neil
________________________________________
From: nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu [nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Doug Yanega [dyanega at ucr.edu]
Sent: 09 July 2013 18:24
To: nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu
Subject: Re: [Nhcoll-l] Valuation of holotypes, syntypes and figured specimens

On 7/9/13 9:08 AM, Dirk Neumann wrote:
Hi Neil,

I am sceptical with the intention to replace lost neotypes with newly collected (& prepared) material "just" because types have been lost; at least the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature is clearly excluding this sort of replacement:

"75.2. Circumstances excluded. A neotype is not to be designated as an end in itself, or as a matter of curatorial routine, and any such neotype designation is invalid."
See also: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/ -> Article 75

That the author considers the name bearing type to be lost is one prerequisite among several conditions for a valid neotype designation (compare 75.3.4.) but not considered to be a sufficient reason taken alone.

So yes, to points 1-3 (and 5, which is hard to estimate - maybe if comparing auctions of historic specimens ?!?), but a clear NO to your point 4 (at least form a zoological perspective)
;-)
As a Commissioner, I can add another detail; contrary to popular belief, if a neotype is actually required for a species that has extant paratypes, there is NO requirement that one of the paratypes be selected as neotype. It is, however, a strict requirement (Art. 75.3.6) that the neotype come from "as nearly as practicable" to the type locality, so newly-collected material from the type locality complies with the Code, while paratypes from anywhere other than the type locality do NOT, and cannot be made neotypes without violating the Code. In plain fact, unless it is not practical to collect a species again from its type locality, allotopotypic paratypes have no nomenclatural value whatsoever - though they serve an important taxonomic function (by demonstrating the original authors' species concept).

I feel this is necessary to point out because (1) researchers who assume that they must select a neotype from among existing paratypes need to be discouraged from doing so, because it can invalidate their neotype designation, and (2) in this respect, the Code actually facilitates the designation of freshly-collected material that can be sequenced, allowing for there to be a genetic sequence that is linked to the type specimen of that taxon. Of course, this does require that a species actually has an identifiable type locality (as opposed to, say, something like "Amerique Septentrionale").

As for valuation, speaking strictly as a curator, valuation of types in any manner different from non-types is only likely to cause trouble. I am unaware of any legal justification for doing so (at least in the US), based on rather explicit information from the IRS, and accordingly imagine that if it did in fact come to a court case, unless one had privately insured a specimen to establish its value, one would not be able to prove - in a legal sense - that it was worth any extra amount of money simply because it was "historical". I'm not a lawyer, but I have done research into what "fair market value" is for museum specimens, and it is based strictly on what you can demonstrate someone would pay for a similar specimen (i.e., there is a basis for comparison); if a specimen is unique, though, then by definition you can't point to any other similar specimen(s) as a basis for comparison. Either it has a unique established value (i.e., it was appraised and/or insured for value X), or it has whatever value any other specimen of that species would have.

Sincerely,

--
Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
             http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82