|
Post by exoticimports on Jan 18, 2022 6:07:17 GMT -8
John, thanks for your experiences and insights. I appreciate the time you invest to do so.
On the original topic, it is very odd that there is no type status for the opposite sex. I wonder if this makes it harder to discover the repository for the opposite sex where one or few specimens exist. If such a type rule did exist, it would be beneficial for male and female types to be housed together.
Building on Chris's point, I wonder how many "types" of dubious subspecies are retained in private collections, thus making it impossible to analyze factual status. Well, can't blame me for that one (AFAIK)...I spent last night working through stick insects to ensure none are new...boring...stupid things all look the same...I'm glad I got rid of 95% of them and only have to review those I overlooked and didn't dispose of.
Chuck
|
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Jan 18, 2022 7:51:08 GMT -8
John, thanks for your experiences and insights. I appreciate the time you invest to do so. On the original topic, it is very odd that there is no type status for the opposite sex. I wonder if this makes it harder to discover the repository for the opposite sex where one or few specimens exist. If such a type rule did exist, it would be beneficial for male and female types to be housed together. Building on Chris's point, I wonder how many "types" of dubious subspecies are retained in private collections, thus making it impossible to analyze factual status. Well, can't blame me for that one (AFAIK)...I spent last night working through stick insects to ensure none are new...boring...stupid things all look the same...I'm glad I got rid of 95% of them and only have to review those I overlooked and didn't dispose of. Chuck These days, many people designate an "Allotype" of the opposite sex to the Holotype, however, this has no standing under The Code and is just another Paratype, and obviously it has to be part of the original type series. If the opposite sex is discovered after the original description it can have no types. Of course, there are many cases in the past when a sexually dimorphic species had both sexes described as different species; in this case the subsequently described name becomes a synonym of the first, but at least both sexes would have types! All types and depositories should be listed in the original description of new taxa, so you should be able to tell where they are kept, and one would hope that the owner would allow access to genuine researchers. Some types in private collections are better looked after, and just as accessible, as those in some institutions. Unfortunately, there are many cases where the original description states that primary types will be placed in an institutional collection, but that never actually happens. It's also not unusual to see types sold, this doesn't matter so much where it is one of many Paratypes, but it is occasionally seen with primary types - this should never happen!
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Jan 18, 2022 8:09:02 GMT -8
Bobw, good insights into designating an opposite-sex allotype. My take-away is that if you're going to describe a type series, do all at the same time. Thanks. I just unload my specimens elsewhere and let them figure out what to do...lazy man's way.
Chuck
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Jan 18, 2022 9:23:16 GMT -8
Just a few thoughts and comments. 1 - I've not heard anything about a push to return specimens back to their country or origin - if they were obtained legally. Even when not legal - I've rumblings that they "should go back" but in practice they either go to a local university or the USNM. There was an issue with some Kemner bugs (a collector who was selling Mexican material without permits)in the late 90's in Ohio, and a bunch of those were tagged by USFWS "to be returned" to Mexico. At the end of the day, they ended up at a land grant university here in the states. 2 - If you have a permit to collect in a country - it generally tells you what you can and cannot do with your bugs. There are no restrictions in my Belize permits. Peru and Brazil have language that says that holotypes and some paratypes must be deposited in country. If you want to get permits, you really need to comply with the conditions in those permits. 3 - The historical trend of US and European museums retaining types series is reminiscent of the colonial past, where big bossy countries came into less wealthy regions and took what ever they wanted to take. It is so ingrained in many of us, that we don't even question it. But the idea that someone in Peru needs to come to the states or UK to study their own country's biota is a little insulting if you are a Peruvian. 4 - Despite the bad press, the major insect collections in Brazil are housed in secure facilities at universities. Curitiba has the mega collection, and Sao Paulo does as well (I've not seen that one). The "national" collection in Rio de Janeiro was a major loss of old, historical material. But I was told before it was lost that there was very little recent material being added. 5 - The US National Park Service has always had the restrictions that "they own the dead bugs you collect" in their permits. If you have a permit, you need to deposit the material in an approved institutional collection at the end of the day. (some universities chaffed at this in the old days and declined to be repositories, but I think that has passed by now). As a private collector, that means that you can "keep the bugs" collected under the permit, but the bugs belong to the Park Service and you have to have a pre-arranged repository for when you bite the big one. Years ago, we had a permit to catch Karner Blue females and hold them for a few days to harvest eggs. Those females had to be returned to the park and released if alive, and handed over to park staff if deceased. John I agree on most of your points. Few comments : 1- right, as said the Nagoya protocole was created for Prime Art, archeology and so on... not for entomology. Even if applied to entomological Museums too. 2- True. But if someone discover a new species in Indonesia, let's wait 200 more years that someone in Indonesia get an official LIPI permits to describe it. And this species will have disappeared with the fast deforestation there. 3- True but the "big bossy countries" also invented taxonomy, entomology and in Linne or Rothschild times, I am afraid no locals would have described anything. But we could have wait 3 more centuries to be more respectful. Science should not be a "nationalist" thing. Who cares if a species is described by a European, an Asian, an African. 4- That's a relief. Unfortunately for Brazil (and several other tropical countries), old material have more importance than new, as many biotopes have been lost for ever.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Grinter on Jan 19, 2022 12:28:53 GMT -8
Just a few thoughts and comments. I agree on most of your points. Few comments : 1- right, as said the Nagoya protocole was created for Prime Art, archeology and so on... not for entomology. Even if applied to entomological Museums too. 2- True. But if someone discover a new species in Indonesia, let's wait 200 more years that someone in Indonesia get an official LIPI permits to describe it. And this species will have disappeared with the fast deforestation there. 3- True but the "big bossy countries" also invented taxonomy, entomology and in Linne or Rothschild times, I am afraid no locals would have described anything. But we could have wait 3 more centuries to be more respectful. Science should not be a "nationalist" thing. Who cares if a species is described by a European, an Asian, an African. 4- That's a relief. Unfortunately for Brazil (and several other tropical countries), old material have more importance than new, as many biotopes have been lost for ever. 1-Nagoya has nothing to do with repatriating existing specimens. Post 2012 it affects benefit sharing for genetic information, yes this does include entomology. Tracking of how molecular sequences are taken and used is a laborious and complex situation for signatories of Nagoya, or countries who issue permits from Nagoya countries AND who choose to enforce that policy. If you're doing strict taxonomy then you're off the hook, but the problem is someone "could" do molecular work down the line and that must be approved and tracked. Nagoya and the entire Convention on Biological Diversity treaty to which Nagoya was amended, was not really written with taxonomy and basic science in consideration. Instead they worried about big-pharma coming in and taking derivatives from native species and making a billion dollar medication and 0% of that goes back to country of origin. 2-you can wait 200 years, but the permit rules still apply. If you got a permit saying types must be returned to Indonesia then you still have to return the types to Indonesia in 200 years. Or you're saying time is running out, we can't wait 200 years for someone local to do the research? It sounds like you're advocating to illegally collect, which I don't think is your point here. 3-By "big bossy countries" you mean western colonial countries who ransacked and slaughtered for national power. No wonder why it's impossible to get permits in India now. Just because we came up with it doesn't mean it's "right" or "better" than what local people called their local animals. Today taxonomy can be inclusive and equitable, it's our job to not only abide by the rules that other countries enforce when asking for permits, but to also share our resources and expertise with entomologists abroad. It's standard practice these days to take students from local universities in the field with you on your trip, teach courses or give talks when you're in-country, leave some specimens from your collecting behind (and to deposit holotypes in country of origin when requested).
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Jan 19, 2022 17:26:21 GMT -8
I think the 200 years reference concerns LIPI control over who gets permits, what gets published and by who, and where.
No worries! LIPI is dead, consolidated under BRIN, which has the explicit task to “ protecting from irresponsible researches which may potentially conflicted with national ideology, interests, and wisdoms”
Lol. Went from bad to worse.
But don’t illegally collect or publish there, you might find a species they don’t want protected! Fortunately for us, Sumatra has already been denuded, so no risk there. I do not support recognizing the laws of Mickey Mouse countries.
|
|
|
|
Post by skandinavisk on Jan 19, 2022 19:37:54 GMT -8
Speaking of Mickey Mouse countries... does anyone know which country Mickey Mouse is really from? 🤔
|
|
|
Post by kevinkk on Jan 20, 2022 10:58:30 GMT -8
Speaking of Mickey Mouse countries... does anyone know which country Mickey Mouse is really from? 🤔 I think it's this one. In any event, this has been an interesting thread, and even though a lot of it is over my head, I had to look up the difference between paratype and holotype- it made for interesting reading.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 20, 2022 11:25:58 GMT -8
kevinkk, Thank you for bringing this thread back to its subject. Let's not respond to the previous post please! Any responses will be deleted.Adam.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 20, 2022 11:36:46 GMT -8
By the way, there are only a few categories of type specimen that are validly recognised under the Code.
The Code glossary states:
type, n. A term used alone, or forming part of a compound term, to denote a particular kind of specimen or taxon. allotype A term, not regulated by the Code, for a designated specimen of opposite sex to the holotype [Recommendation 72A]. cotype A term not recognized by the Code, formerly used for either syntype or paratype, but that should not now be used in zoological nomenclature [Recommendation 73E]. genotype A term not recognized by the Code, formerly used for type species, but that should not now be used in zoological nomenclature [Recommendation 67A]. hapantotype One or more preparations consisting of directly related individuals representing distinct stages in the life cycle, which together form the name-bearing type in an extant species of protistan [Arts 72.5.4, 73.3]. A hapantotype, while a series of individuals, is a holotype that must not be restricted by lectotype selection; however, if a hapantotype is found to contain individuals of more than one species, components may be excluded until it contains individuals of only one species [Art. 73.3.2]. holotype The single specimen (except in the case of a hapantotype, q.v.) designated or otherwise fixed as the name-bearing type of a nominal species or subspecies when the nominal taxon is established. lectotype A syntype designated as the single name -bearing type specimen subsequent to the establishment of a nominal species or subspecies [Art. 74]. name-bearing type The type genus, type species, holotype, lectotype, series of syntypes (which together constitute the name-bearing type) or neotype that provides the objective standard of reference whereby the application of the name of a nominal taxon can be determined. neotype The single specimen designated as the name -bearing type of a nominal species or subspecies when there is a need to define the nominal taxon objectively and no name-bearing type is believed to be extant. If stability and universality are threatened, because an existing name -bearing type is either taxonomically inadequate or not in accord with the prevailing usage of a name, the Commission may use its plenary power to set aside that type and designate a neotype. paralectotype Each specimen of a former syntype series remaining after the designation of a lectotype [Art. 72.1.3, Recommendation 74F]. paratype Each specimen of a type series other than the holotype [Recommendation 73D]. syntype Each specimen of a type series (q.v.) from which neither a holotype nor a lectotype has been designated [Arts. 72.1.2, 73.2, 74]. The syntypes collectively constitute the name -bearing type. topotype, n. (topotypic, a.) A term, not regulated by the Code, for a specimen originating from the type locality of the species or subspecies to which it is thought to belong, whether or not the specimen is part of the type series.
[Phrases were put in bold font by me to emphasise those categories outside the Code.]
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Jan 20, 2022 13:33:41 GMT -8
Adam, can we sticky this somewhere? I'll admit, sometimes I have to go search up the right term- in fact, too often. That's why I ask it be stickied where it's easy to find.
Thanks,
Chuck
Oh, one more- topotype. What value is this? I'd think not-topotype would be of more value. Clearly, the holotype came from a location. Isn't it then MORE important to know where else it came from? [ha, I'm not suggesting any sort of type designation for specimens from other than the type location, that would be almost every other specimen.] I suppose in the rare case where the holotype is believed extirpated, and then found there again, OK, but still...
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 21, 2022 3:00:05 GMT -8
All "topotype" means is that it is a specimen collected at the type locality that does not form part of the type series from the original description. Usually these were collected after the original series, but sometimes only part of the original specimens were sent to be described, the rest went elsewhere. An example of this is Bhutanitis ludlowi, where some specimens were sent to BMNH and used in the description but others went to the collectors' own collections. These were not seen and are not paratypes.
Often a 'topotype' label is added to a modern specimen of Parnassius to indicate it came from the type locality, presumably in order to try to add commercial value to the specimen. Theoretically a 'topotype' should represent the same taxon as the holotype (or syntypes if a holotype was not designate in the original description - note that it must have been designated in the published description, just putting a type label on one of the syntypes does not confer holotype status on that specimen), however occasionally the original taxon has been replaced by something else at the type locality, so topotypes have absolutely no nomenclatural value at all.
I agree that non-topotype material is very useful to see the distribution of a taxon. However I should point out that the sentence "I suppose in the rare case where the holotype is believed extirpated, and then found there again" is inaccurate. There is only ever a single specimen called the 'holotype', which is the name-bearing specimen. This is the absolute reference for the name, and if another specimen is not the same taxon as this one it cannot use the same name. The holotype must have been designated in the original description and all the other listed specimens are paratypes if not by designation then by inference, unless specified as excluded from the type series, even if they actually are subsequently found to belong to a different taxon. Specimens collected at the type locality are not 'holotypes' as your sentence implies.
If no holotype was designated in the original description all of the type series are called 'syntypes' and are equally name-bearing types. In the event that some of the syntypes belong to a different taxon a lectotype can be designated in order to fix the name to one of the taxa involved. The remainder of the syntype series become 'para-lectotypes' and the lectotype becomes the sole-name-bearing specimen. A lectotype can only be designated if there is a nomenclatural reason to do so.
In the rare event that the holotype and all other type specimens are lost (or destroyed such as in the Rio Museum fire) a 'neotype' can be designated to assume name-bearing type status, but this can only be done if there is a good reason to designate one - for example if the original description involved several different taxa, or the name could be applied to more than one taxon.
Adam.
PS. Maybe Olivier will agree to 'sticky' this thread at the top, but you could copy the text into a Word file or similar and save it on your computer. Alternatively the ICZN Code is available online at iczn.org.
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Jan 21, 2022 5:47:08 GMT -8
A lectotype can only be designated if there is a nomenclatural reason to do so. Oh, how I wish that were always the case!
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Jan 21, 2022 8:32:54 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Jan 21, 2022 9:52:46 GMT -8
Adam, can we sticky this somewhere? I'll admit, sometimes I have to go search up the right term- in fact, too often. That's why I ask it be stickied where it's easy to find. Thanks, Chuck Oh, one more- topotype. What value is this? I'd think not-topotype would be of more value. Clearly, the holotype came from a location. Isn't it then MORE important to know where else it came from? [ha, I'm not suggesting any sort of type designation for specimens from other than the type location, that would be almost every other specimen.] I suppose in the rare case where the holotype is believed extirpated, and then found there again, OK, but still... It could be indeed useful to work on a lexicon for taxonomy/entomology and to create a page with it on the Insectnet blog ? Adam : do you want to work on it ?
|
|