(007–008) Proposals to make clearer the circumstances under which a holotype can exist

Abstract

When Art. 9.1 was amended at the Shenzhen Congress of 2017, the wording became clearer, but an unforeseen problem was introduced by replacing the word “designated” in the Melbourne Code (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012) with “indicated” in the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). There is a difference between designating and indicating a type. Although Art. 7.11 does not concern holotypes, it tells us that designation of a type requires the type to be “definitely accepted as such by the typifying author” and the type element (specimen or illustration) to be “clearly indicated by direct citation including the term ‘type’ or an equivalent”. In addition, the Glossary defines type designation as “an explicit statement that establishes the type of a name”. On the other hand, indication of a type need not be explicit: “indication of the type […] can be achieved by reference to an entire gathering, or a part thereof” (Art. 40.2), and “mention of a single specimen or gathering […] or illustration, even if that element is not explicitly designated as type, is acceptable as indication of the type” (Art. 40.3 second sentence). Given how few details are needed to satisfy “mention of a single specimen or gathering” (Art. 40 Note 2), an indication may be indirect or even cryptic. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or after 1 January 1958, mention in the protologue of a single specimen or gathering or illustration can indicate “the type” for the purpose of valid publication of the name, even if that element is not explicitly designated as the type (Art. 40.3 second sentence). If that element is a single specimen or illustration (not a gathering consisting of more than one specimen), “the type” can really only mean the holotype. On or after 1 January 1990 it is necessary, again for the purpose of valid publication, to use one of the words “typus” or “holotypus” or its abbreviation or equivalent when indicating the type (Art. 40.6), i.e. not merely indicating it but explicitly designating it as the type. These rules do not, however, apply to names published before 1958. This is explicit in the date limitations of Art. 40.1 and 40.6 and implicit in the reference “For the purpose of Art. 40.1” in the second sentence of Art. 40.3. It should therefore be clear that a single element cited in the protologue of a pre-1958 name is not the holotype merely because it was the single element cited. Nevertheless, the Code does not explicitly limit the application of Art. 40.3 by date, and Art. 9.1 allows a holotype to be indicated, which is much less stringent than requiring it to be designated. This could result, for example, in a single cited illustration being regarded as the holotype of a pre-1958 name and an uncited specimen among the original material being considered unavailable as the lectotype, regardless of which element would serve better as the type. Or an element considered to be the holotype on the basis of it being the only element cited in the protologue could conflict taxonomically with the current usage of the name, whereas other, uncited elements of original material could support current usage and provide the lectotype if there was no holotype. The amendments proposed below restore “indicated” to “designated” in Art. 9.1 and provide a new rule explicitly preventing the mere mention of a single element from constituting designation of the holotype, except for names published on or after 1 January 1958. There is also the rather vague concept in Art. 9.1(b) of an author having “used” only one specimen or illustration, which is therefore the holotype. Such use by the author is specified by Art. 9 Note 1 as “when preparing the account of the new taxon” and is illustrated by Ex. 1. The Note cautions us to consider that uncited specimens or illustrations may also have been used by the author and that these may have been lost or destroyed (which is not uncommon with Linnaean names, for example). The intent of the proposed amendments is to tighten the application of this provision (Art. 9.1(b)) to situations where there is compelling evidence in the protologue or elsewhere to establish that only a single element (specimen or illustration) was used in preparing the protologue. Where subsequent publications have cited the existence of a “holotype” that cannot be defended under the newly proposed wording, Art. 9.10 allows correction of this term to “lectotype” (see Art. 9 Ex. 11), except in those publications appearing on or after 1 January 2001, which must have a more explicit lectotype designation satisfying Art. 7.11 (using the phrase “designated here” or an equivalent). In order to make clearer the circumstances under which a holotype can exist, the following amendments to Art. 9.1 and Art. 9 Note 1 are proposed. Note 1 is converted to an Article because it contains provisions not covered by other Articles and, as explained in the Preface of the Shenzhen Code (p. xxiv), “Notes have binding effect but, unlike Articles, do not introduce any new provision or concept.” The proposed new wording for Art. 9.1 brings it into closer agreement with that of the current Art. 9.2, which uses the phrase “designation of holotype”, eliminating any possible confusion in applying Art. 9.2 when a type was merely indicated. “9.1. A holotype of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is the one specimen or illustration (but see Art. 40.4) either (a) indicated designated by the author(s) in the protologue as the nomenclatural type or (b) used by the author(s) in preparing the protologue when no type was indicated designated. As long as the holotype is extant, it fixes the application of the name concerned (but see Art. 9.15).” “9.1bis. Any designation of the type made by the original author(s), if definitely expressed at the time of the original publication of the name of the taxon in the protologue, is final (but see Art. 9.11, 9.15, and 9.16). Mention of a single specimen or gathering or illustration does not by itself constitute designation of the holotype (but see Art. 40.3 for names published on or after 1 January 1958). However, if there is evidence in the protologue or elsewhere to establish that only one (either cited or uncited) specimen or illustration was used (Art. 9.1(b)) and no additional, uncited specimens or illustrations (which may have been lost or destroyed) could have been used, that specimen or illustration must be accepted as the holotype. If the author used only one specimen or illustration, either cited or uncited, when preparing the account of the new taxon, it must be accepted as the holotype, but the possibility that the author used additional, uncited specimens or illustrations (which may have been lost or destroyed) must always be considered. If a name of a new taxon is validly published solely by reference to a previously published description or diagnosis, the same considerations apply to specimens or illustrations used by the author(s) of that description or diagnosis (see Art. 7.8; but see Art. 7.9).” “Ex. 1. When Tuckerman published Opegrapha oulocheila Tuck. (Lich. Calif.: 32. 1866) he referred to “the single specimen, from Schweinitz's herbarium (Herb. Acad. Sci. Philad.) before me”. Even though the term “type” or its equivalent was not used in the protologue, Tuckerman's statement is evidence to establish that he used only that specimen (in PH barcode 00007529), which is therefore the holotype.” “Ex. 2. In the protologue of Coronilla argentea L. (Sp. Pl.: 743. 1753), Linnaeus cited an illustration by Alpini (Pl. Exot.: 16. 1627) and did not designate a type. Although no uncited specimens or illustrations are known to exist, making Alpini's illustration the only extant element of original material, it is not the holotype because it cannot be established that Linnaeus used only this one element when preparing the protologue; he rarely cited specimens and could have used a specimen that was subsequently lost or destroyed (he is known to have discarded specimens). Moreover, the mention of the illustration does not by itself constitute designation of the holotype. Alpini's illustration was designated as the lectotype of C. argentea by Greuter (in Ann. Mus. Goulandris 1: 44. 1973).” “Ex. 2bis. In the protologue of Stellaria radians L. (Sp. Pl.: 422. 1753), Linnaeus cited no specimens, but he did cite a single illustration (“Amm. ruth. 83. t. 10.”) referring to species number 83 on page 64 and “Tab. X” in Amman (Stirp. Rar. Ruth. 1739). The Amman illustration is not the holotype because, as was commonly the case, Linnaeus also used at least one uncited specimen in preparing the protologue: Gmelin s.n., Herb. Linn. No. 584.3 (LINN), which was designated by Lazkov (in Taxon 53: 1053. 2004) as the lectotype.” We thank Mike Wisnev for his valuable comments in July 2018 on issues concerning Art. 9.1, Note 1 and Ex. 1 and 2 in what was then the newly published Shenzhen Code. These comments had a positive impact on our discussion and formulation of the amendments proposed here.