|
|
Post by wollastoni on Jan 14, 2022 7:24:00 GMT -8
One question for Adam or other ICZN code specialist :
When a species is known from one sex only (most of the time, males) and have this sex deposited in Museum (type, paratype...).
When you want to later describe the female, do you have to deposit a female in Museum, or is it not compulsory ?
Thanks a lot
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 14, 2022 10:14:57 GMT -8
No, there is no requirement to deposit a subsequent specimen of the other sex in a museum. It has no status in nomenclature.
Actually there is no requirement to deposit the holotype or syntypes of a new taxon in a museum, it is just a recommendation (see below).
There IS a requirement under article 16.4.2 to state the name and location of the collection where the types will be deposited, as follows:
16.4
... must be accompanied in the original publication
16.4.2. where the holotype or syntypes are extant specimens, by a statement of intent that they will be (or are) deposited in a collection and a statement indicating the name and location of that collection (see Recommendation 16C).
Recommendation 16C. Preservation and deposition of type specimens. Recognizing that name - bearing types are international standards of reference (see Article 72.10) authors should deposit type specimens in an institution that maintains a research collection, with proper facilities for preserving them and making them accessible for study (i.e. one which meets the criteria in Recommendation 72F).
If the types are housed in a private collection there should be a statement of location of that collection (usually the author's collection at the address stated in the paper), or the name of the recognised institution where the type "will be" deposited (... some unspecified time in the future!). If this never happens the name does not become unavailable, but it is possible that in a future edition of the Code that will change.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Grinter on Jan 14, 2022 11:38:47 GMT -8
Yes definitely not an agreeable part of the code in my opinion, it should be required to deposit the primary type in a public collection. But it seems to be tradition in Europe for taxonomists to maintain private collections that are later sold to the highest bidder, not always an institution.
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Jan 14, 2022 13:56:41 GMT -8
In general Chris, I agree. With caveats.
Not all institutions are equal, and it changes over time. Brazil’s Ill cared for museums (four recently IIRC) have burned up thousands of type specimens. And I have concern for colonial and other specimens at “woke”’institutions.
Further, not all institutions are research friendly, particularly toward amateurs.
And there are funding issues that have arisen, and could become crises. SUNY college enrollments are down 40% to 70%. Other universities as well. With that goes maintenance and staffing to do so. Will outrageous Ivy League revenues crash? What will happen to Covells material at UK?
Private collections tend to be well funded and maintained, at least for 50 years. They may be geographically distributed, making it more difficult for research, but not everyone’s house will burn simultaneously. And in many cases private individuals are more welcoming to research visits.
A healthy mix of private and universities is probably the safest long term storage solution.
And this may sound rough but institutions are fully capable of paying for type specimens. In most cases it would take me about five minutes to find wasteful spending on the part of any institution- money that could have procured type specimens.
For the record, in they heyday of my field work, I donated tens of thousands of specimens, with some certainly rare, and likely type specimens. They were gladly taken up by institutions. But when I asked for an Afilliation in order to obtain permits, not a one stepped up. I guess they don’t want those specimens so bad after all.
For the record, AFAIK I retain but one isotope.
Chuck
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 15, 2022 1:07:29 GMT -8
"For the record, AFAIK I retain but one isotope." Hopefully not radioactive  ... you should turn off autocorrect. Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Jan 15, 2022 3:04:27 GMT -8
Chuck, you need to lighten up. On nearly every single topic you add a despondent, downcast, or gloomy reply. We have many readers from all over the world, and things are as you said very different across the globe. If people in your part of the world can't get their act together it doesn't mean that any of that is true elsewhere. Your concerns for college enrollment only make sense in the United States of America, if at all.
I want to add that in all of my years of activity as an amateur I have never been turned away from by a museum. Many private collectors have met with me over the years and I am grateful that they kindly hosted me. I have had official affiliations with 2 museums in two countries. I have seen and worked in the largest collections that exist on this planet.
Of course I have felt that over the years curators have become more busy as they had to fulfill more and more obligations. So it is important to explain them why you would want to access a collection, what benefit the museum might have from it, and when you would like to do so. Also, if there is any chance that you will want to run a commercial activity with specimen that you catch in another country they understandably cannot help you as they do not have the right to do so. You must get in touch with local people.
===
For the topic: I think Adam's reply was clear as always and has all the information needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Jan 15, 2022 4:32:13 GMT -8
"For the record, AFAIK I retain but one isotope." Hopefully not radioactive ... you should turn off autocorrect. Adam. Ha good Adam. I was a bit tired having been flying all day! Darned autocorrect. Well I’ll leave it, if I correct it, it won’t be funny anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Jan 15, 2022 4:49:07 GMT -8
Some private collection are better cared than some institutions and some institutions lost types or didn't care them.
Then it is better to let the choice for where to deposit the type.
Museums are not always safe (see Brazil, Portugal, and other countries that have been destroyed by war as in Germany). And many authorities have nothing to do with natural history collection refusing to spend money for them.
Does exist a definition of what is a Museum or "Institution" ? as far as I know t is not so clear.
Why not creating official institutions specialised in types and financed by international and official funds ? The only way in my POV to solve the problem and to put in the code the obligation to deposit types in specific location.
Note that the value of "types" is a creation of the Museums themselves to estimate their own collection. It is then logic that this value is now taken into account by any collectors. There is a kind of hypocrisis of the "officials" with this matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Jan 15, 2022 4:57:49 GMT -8
Yes definitely not an agreeable part of the code in my opinion, it should be required to deposit the primary type in a public collection. But it seems to be tradition in Europe for taxonomists to maintain private collections that are later sold to the highest bidder, not always an institution. Chris, that's not true.  I would say that all European entomologists I know (and I know many) are depositing holotype specimens in Museums. I have myself put all holotypes in the BMNH and MHN (I thought it was compulsory). And some periodical like Sugapa are requiring holotypes to go to an official Museum (or they refuse your article). A new issue though in Europe is the Nagoya convention, which make harder some descriptions as Museum cannot accept some holotypes from tropical countries now... a real mess for amateur entomologists and European entomologists. BTW Adam, do you have any contact in a Museum from Laos ? I would need it to deposit a future type specimen that I can't describe otherwise (if they have a Museum there...)... And thanks a lot for your answer on the female. |
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Jan 15, 2022 5:45:04 GMT -8
Does exist a definition of what is a Museum or "Institution" ? as far as I know t is not so clear. When something is regulated it is regulated by law. Some countries have a law defining what a museum is, and some do not. Laws can exist on different levels (federal, municipal). Laws can change. So, the exact answer will depend on where you are. I guess as there is no universal definition of a museum or institution the ICZN code does not require a deposition of specimen. In very broad terms, a museum is a publicly accessible collection of goods to advance and preserve human knowledge. There is a good definition by the ICOM (international council of museums) that one can read up. In Germany, I only know of one privately funded museum that operated publicly and had several staff members. The founding patron died in 2019 and I wonder how they will move forward. |
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Jan 15, 2022 5:49:43 GMT -8
A new issue though in Europe is the Nagoya convention, which make harder some descriptions as Museum cannot accept some holotypes from tropical countries now... Can you expand on that? I couldn’t find anything specific to it. I was told that US institutions are supposed to return specimens to some source countries (specifically Brazil, where I’d send nothing) but I don’t know the source of this or if it’s related to Nagoya or Types. Thanks Chuck |
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Jan 15, 2022 6:11:55 GMT -8
exoticimports : the Nagoya convention was put in place at the origin for Prime Art. As you know, a lot of historical artistic objects from Africa, Asia (and so on) are in the British and Paris Museums, and other EU museums for historical reasons (colonization). To protect countries of origin, now Museums need to have the ok of the country of origin to accept new pieces of art. Let's say it was rather a good practice for the Art area (and a better deal for European Museums than sending back their colonial art...) Problem is they apply that to science too... And now : - European Museums can't accept holotypes from tropical countries without the ok of tropical countries - Most tropical countries say no - The same tropical countries don't give you collecting permits - The same tropical countries have no local official collectors, and no funding to organize expeditions. The result is a total mess : some holotypes are sent in horrible tropical local museums where specimens are not well kept, some publications are cancelled and most of the time, holotypes are kept in private collection which is NOT a good practice. I don't know if the US have signed this Nagoya Protocole. (it was more a Western European topic linked to colonization).
|
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Jan 15, 2022 7:43:14 GMT -8
The Nagoya protocol is a little bit like the Lacey act, but not exactly the same. The gist of it is that signatory countries have to: - have proper documentation on their genetic resources. - share monetary gains and intellectual property (something that rather happens in cattle breeds or crops) with countries of origin of the samples - make a transfer of knowledge happen to developing countries (should provide access to databases and train local people/students/share funding for research). Participating countries are also required to make required paperwork clear and accessible. Concerning Laos: www.cbd.int/countries/?country=laContact information: www.cbd.int/countries/nfp/?country=la&details=trueBut these people might be very busy and I hope that someone could share better contact details with you in a PM. Yes our hobby has become more complicated in the last 10 years, so we have to see what has changed and act accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Jan 15, 2022 8:09:50 GMT -8
On Nagoya: I could see where that makes sense, to allow source countries to profit. I've read a number of times in the past of plants benefiting pharmaceuticals, and source country benefit is zero. Of course, every good intention turns into both bureaucratic hurdles and over-reach. I can see where one would argue only the Type specimen is of potential value for future revenue sharing, on the other hand any specimen of an economically significant thing could be used, thus opening the door to comprehensive bureaucracy and controls.
USA (not surprisingly) is not a signatory to Nagoya. However, a quick search indicates that USA practices it at the discretion of the government.
I'm wondering where from comes what I was told that entomological specimens originating in Brazil have to be returned to Brazil. If nobody knows I'll go to my source.
A similar situation of which I recently became aware is that specimens, including Type specimens, captured in US National Parks "belong to the [National Park Service] and may be placed on long term loan to institutions" (The Remarkable endemism of moths from White Sands National Park, Metzler, LepSoc News Winter 2021). I'm wondering how a "Service" can own any property. Further, Metzler writes "Personal possession is not allowed..." So somehow NPS retains ownership forever of all type specimens captured in US national parks, for whatever reason.
As Wollastoni noted, not all countries are prepared to care for specimens. Cook Islands Natural Resources, for example, has an insect collection, if I recall maybe 50 drawers. It's stored in a shed with no environmental control and many of the specimens are destroyed. Solomon Islands had an entomology collection at Burns Creek and a collection of other bottled material at Botanical Gardens; Burns Creek was intentionally burned to the ground and the Botanical Gardens collection was looted, probably destroyed for the fun of watching bottles break. Brazil, well there's enough in the news to indicate they are in no shape to secure important collections.
Chuck
|
|
|
|
Post by jshuey on Jan 17, 2022 13:12:44 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
|
|
... you should turn off autocorrect.
