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

[Doug Yanega]

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/nhcoll-l/attachments/20130709/0b3fe5d4/attachment.html