|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 21, 2022 10:25:14 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! Indeed, before the current Code lectotype designation could be (and often was) accidental. A good example of butterfly chaos that this has caused is that each specimen that D'Abrera called "the type" in phrases such as 'type as illustrated' often with a red dot in his books published before 2000 needs checking to confirm the specimen's status. Some were genuine holotypes, some syntypes, and thus became the lectotype by inadvertent designation and some were not even syntypes. In the last case those specimens have no status as types, but their status still needs confirmation. Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 21, 2022 10:35:30 GMT -8
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 ? I hope you realise that a lexicon for taxonomy/entomology would take up a whole book. It sounds a good idea to create a blog page, but to be frank I currently don't have enough time as it is. Moderating Insectnet and the ICF and posting replies takes up more time than I can afford as it is, and at the same time I have to try to survive as well as writing papers and books with colleagues. There are some interesting works in the pipeline which I will keep everyone informed about as they are published. Long term I would be happy to help contribute some small parts to such a project, or help review and edit other members' contributions. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Grinter on Jan 21, 2022 11:46:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Jan 21, 2022 12:32:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 22, 2022 0:57:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Jan 22, 2022 0:59:50 GMT -8
It's very similar to an article published back in the 90s in "Papilio International", a journal published by my old friend Jan Haugum. It's not quite the same as it doesn't have one or two type categories I remember from the article such as Aviotype or Japanotype.
|
|
|
|
Post by inopinatus on Jan 22, 2022 1:03:32 GMT -8
Interesting. Very exhaustive indeed.
I notice it mentions the term: Hallucinotype: “ The type of a taxon described while the author was under the influence of drugs. “
I guess it’s some king of joke..
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 22, 2022 4:42:03 GMT -8
It's very similar to an article published back in the 90s in "Papilio International", a journal published by my old friend Jan Haugum. It's not quite the same as it doesn't have one or two type categories I remember from the article such as Aviotype or Japanotype. Jan is very much missed. I only met him once when he came to the UK, but in the late 1970s we used to discuss Papilionidae by snail mail. The term 'Japanotype' is still in regular use. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Jan 22, 2022 4:44:24 GMT -8
Oh, how I wish that were always the case! Indeed, before the current Code lectotype designation could be (and often was) accidental. A good example of butterfly chaos that this has caused is that each specimen that D'Abrera called "the type" in phrases such as 'type as illustrated' often with a red dot in his books published before 2000 needs checking to confirm the specimen's status. Some were genuine holotypes, some syntypes, and thus became the lectotype by inadvertent designation and some were not even syntypes. In the last case those specimens have no status as types, but their status still needs confirmation. Adam. Indeed, D'Abrera's "red dot" habit was confusing and dangerous. However, I have more of a problem with deliberate, but unnecessary, lectotype designations. I've known people who, whenever they work on a taxon that was described from a series of Syntypes, will always pick one to be the Lectotype; this is completely unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, e.g. unless the series contains more than one species. I've also regularly found Lectotype labels on museum specimens where the Lectotype designation has never been published, this makes the designation invalid but the label still has to stay with the specimen forever, and I've found this done by some very famous, well-respected entomologists who should know better!
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Jan 22, 2022 6:45:46 GMT -8
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 ? I hope you realise that a lexicon for taxonomy/entomology would take up a whole book. It sounds a good idea to create a blog page, but to be frank I currently don't have enough time as it is. Moderating Insectnet and the ICF and posting replies takes up more time than I can afford as it is, and at the same time I have to try to survive as well as writing papers and books with colleagues. There are some interesting works in the pipeline which I will keep everyone informed about as they are published. Long term I would be happy to help contribute some small parts to such a project, or help review and edit other members' contributions. Adam. I had in mine a lexicon with the 50 or 100 more important taxonomical terms. Those useful for Insectnet readers.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 22, 2022 10:18:33 GMT -8
Indeed, D'Abrera's "red dot" habit was confusing and dangerous. However, I have more of a problem with deliberate, but unnecessary, lectotype designations. I've known people who, whenever they work on a taxon that was described from a series of Syntypes, will always pick one to be the Lectotype; this is completely unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, e.g. unless the series contains more than one species. I've also regularly found Lectotype labels on museum specimens where the Lectotype designation has never been published, this makes the designation invalid but the label still has to stay with the specimen forever, and I've found this done by some very famous, well-respected entomologists who should know better! Yes, the BMNH Papilionidae collection has specimens with lectotype labels without actual designations, and I guess all the other butterfly families too. We validly designated one of those as lectotype (because it was needed - lectotype designations require taxonomic justification under the current Code) a few years ago, after the late Campbell Smith had labelled the specimen but retired before publishing his research. The Rothschild collection in particular contains many taxa with the word 'Type' on the label of one of the syntypes, but without a holotype designation in the original description. Each of these needs to be checked for status, both to confirm whether it was designated as holotype in the original description and whether it was subsequently designated as lectotype by anyone, deliberately or otherwise. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 22, 2022 10:22:21 GMT -8
I had in mine [= mind, AC] a lexicon with the 50 or 100 more important taxonomical terms. Those useful for Insectnet readers. Ah, I understand. I would be happy to contribute if you draw up a list of words that you would like to include. I guess that once the initial list is posted on the Insectnet blog it can subsequently be added to at members' request. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Jan 22, 2022 15:43:40 GMT -8
I've seen Holotype, Syntype and Paratype labels on the same specimen! Some past curators were either ignorant or not careful enough when adding labels to specimens. The problem is that once a label is on a specimen it has to stay there, even if it's wrong. Obviously I do the research and give the correct type status to specimens in groups I'm working on, but that's a very small fraction of the total collection.
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Jan 22, 2022 15:44:29 GMT -8
I had in mine [= mind, AC] a lexicon with the 50 or 100 more important taxonomical terms. Those useful for Insectnet readers. Ah, I understand. I would be happy to contribute if you draw up a list of words that you would like to include. I guess that once the initial list is posted on the Insectnet blog it can subsequently be added to at members' request. Adam. I don't mind helping too.
|
|