(028) Recommendation for prohibiting unauthorized division of a type specimen

Abstract

According to Rec. 7A.1 of the Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018), it is strongly recommended that the material on which the name of a taxon is based, especially the holotype, be scrupulously conserved. For nomenclatural stability, the hope is that the holotype will last forever. For some kinds of plants, however, a type is under severe threat of destruction, especially in the study of bryophytes, where taking without permission portions of the type specimen for making duplicates has occasionally occurred in the past through ignorance or arrogance. Bryophyte specimens usually consist of many individual plants, which are small and kept in a paper packet (or often, historically, glued to a mounting sheet), and thus it may be easier to make duplicates than for vascular plants. Such unauthorized divisions of a type specimen, which contain a much smaller volume than that of the original type, have usually been kept by investigators for their own herbarium, and thus these specimens remain hidden until he/she has passed away. Such specimens are occasionally called “kleptotypes”, an unofficial term meaning “(stolen) fragment of type” (Beentje & Williamson, The Kew Plant Glossary. 2010) or “a type or fragment of a type that should not be in its current location (because it was deliberately stolen, borrowed and not returned, etc.)” (Turland, The Code Decoded, ed. 2. 2019). However, according to the current Code (Art. 8 Ex. 8), they are merely treated as duplicates, i.e. isotypes, without any mention of the prohibited practice by which these specimens were derived. We believe that unauthorized division of a type specimen should be prohibited explicitly in the Code. Pfister & Rossman (in Taxon 33: 295–296. 1984) already pointed out a problem with the creation of kleptotypes and mentioned that the unauthorized division of a type specimen should be immediately discontinued as it is destructive, wasteful, and unethical. Because the unauthorized division of a type results in a loss from the original type specimen, such action most likely complicates the work of future generations and may lead to confusion regarding the original concept of the species and to ambiguity and may therefore require multiple verifications in future revisions because researchers usually leave few tracks of their investigations. Pfister & Rossman (l.c.: 295) also noted “Most of us could dredge up a story about a collection of kleptotypes being destroyed—accidently or on purpose—because the contents were obtained through theft.” Most herbaria now ask that all parts of dissections should be returned and that the unauthorized division of a type specimen should no longer occur. As researchers and curators, however, we also believe that when such specimens are found, they should not be destroyed but kept in herbaria as a formal duplicate, e.g. an isotype. We believe that sharing the hidden or emerging information regarding existing kleptotypes is more useful than destroying them on purpose, even if they may contain only a small volume of material. We therefore propose a new Recommendation to prevent unauthorized division of a type specimen. “8A.n. The unauthorized division of a type specimen should be prevented to avoid a loss of the type specimen. Such action most likely complicates the work of future generations and the resulting reduced collections may give a misleading concept of the species. When found, such “kleptotype” specimens should not be destroyed but preserved as duplicates. Formal notification of the existence and location of these specimens should also be published.” We thank Prof. Rod Seppelt for his constructive comments and for checking the English text.