<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/9/13 9:08 AM, Dirk Neumann wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51DC357C.5010508@zsm.mwn.de" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Neil,<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<br>
"75.2. <span class="title">Circumstances excluded.</span> 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."<br>
See also: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/">http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/</a>
-> Article 75<br>
<br>
That the author considers the name bearing type to be lost is <u>one</u>
prerequisite among several conditions for a valid neotype
designation (compare 75.3.4.) but not considered to be a
sufficient reason taken alone.<br>
<br>
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)<br>
;-) <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
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).<br>
<br>
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").<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
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)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html">http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html</a>
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82</pre>
</body>
</html>