[Nhcoll-l] Curating specimens with uncertain type status?

[Dirk Neumann]

Thanks for this valuable update, Doug!

Quick question: if the holotype can be identified from the figure and if the designation of this specimens as "the holotype" is unambiguous from the figure legend, wouldn't it be straight forward if a first reviser (i.e. Nate) would confirm that the depicted holotype as been moved to lot OSUM 4567 and is been treated as holotype, and the paratype specimen previously stored in OSUM 4567 as been assigned to a new lot,  OSUM 8910 ?

Stability of the Code and scientific names is as important as a clear reference and assignation of the holotype. This can be part of a type catalogue or just a brief note specifically to this species/ that case what problems have been observed and how they have been treated.

All the best

Dirk


Am 03.08.2023 um 17:29 schrieb Douglas Yanega:

This case is presently being discussed within the Commission.

At present, 5 Commissioners have ventured opinions. Four (including myself) have stated that they would consider the species name to be available from the original publication, though with very slight differences in reasoning. One considers the name unavailable.

I post this in part to let people know that we on the Commission take these things seriously, and we do like having them brought to our attention.

I post this in part to note that usually we achieve a consensus but rarely is it unanimous, and that not everyone in the Commission participates in general discussions.

Finally, I post this to note that we are in the process of drafting the next Edition of the Code, and this general situation will be accommodated there. By that I mean that the failure to individually discriminate the holotype from other members of the type series will, in the next edition of the Code, result in the type series being treated as syntypes, a significant change from Code 4; apparently this has happened a number of times since Code 4 went into effect in 2000, and taxonomists have evidently ALWAYS been treating those names as available, even though the Code technically does not support this. If this is taxonomic practice, then it seems prudent for us to codify it, rather than double down on the existing policy. I think people here need to be aware that the Commission can respond in this way, to bring the Code in line with what taxonomists are doing, rather than the proverbial "cart leading the horse".

This particular case would not fall under that new provision because there is a reference, in the publication, to a holotype in association with a specific figure of a single specimen; had the listing of types in the text been the only relevant material in the publication, then the consensus shifts (from 4 to 1, to 2 to 3) that the name would have been unavailable under the present Code.

Some cases really are challenging to fit into the existing rules.

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)
             https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82



_______________________________________________
Nhcoll-l mailing list
Nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu<mailto:Nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu>
https://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/nhcoll-l

_______________________________________________
NHCOLL-L is brought to you by the Society for the Preservation of
Natural History Collections (SPNHC), an international society whose
mission is to improve the preservation, conservation and management of
natural history collections to ensure their continuing value to
society. See http://www.spnhc.org for membership information.
Advertising on NH-COLL-L is inappropriate.



--
****

Dirk Neumann
Collection Manager, Hamburg

Postal address:
Museum of Nature Hamburg
Leibniz Institute for the Analysis
of Biodiversity Change
Dirk Neumann
Martin-Luther-King-Platz 3
20146 Hamburg
+49 40 238 317 – 628
d.neumann at leibniz-lib.de<mailto:d.neumann at leibniz-lib.de>
www.leibniz-lib.de<imap://dneumann@webmail.leibniz-lib.de:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX/Privat/www.leibniz-lib.de>

--
Stiftung Leibniz-Institut zur Analyse des Biodiversitätswandels
Postanschrift: Adenauerallee 127, 53113 Bonn, Germany

Stiftung des öffentlichen Rechts;
Generaldirektion: Prof. Dr. Bernhard Misof (Generaldirektor), Adrian Grüter (Kaufm. Geschäftsführer)
Sitz der Stiftung: Adenauerallee 160 in Bonn
Vorsitzender des Stiftungsrates: Dr. Michael Wappelhorst

--
Stiftung Leibniz-Institut zur Analyse des Biodiversitätswandels
Postanschrift: Adenauerallee 127, 53113 Bonn, Germany

Stiftung des öffentlichen Rechts;
Generaldirektion: Prof. Dr. Bernhard Misof (Generaldirektor), Adrian Grüter (Kaufm. Geschäftsführer)
Sitz der Stiftung: Adenauerallee 160 in Bonn
Vorsitzender des Stiftungsrates: Dr. Michael Wappelhorst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/nhcoll-l/attachments/20230803/6d799405/attachment.html>