Alternative nomenclatural procedures as a potential benefit to natural history collections

Abstract

It has been argued that adopting alternative nomenclatural procedures would jeopardize the importance of natural history collection by relegating reference specimens to a secondary role. Based on published statements and applications, the present contribution argues that reference specimens are an essential aspect of both the PhyloCode and the cladotypic procedures. Consequently, the latter procedures might actually result in a revival of interest in those collections, mostly by augmenting the number of reference specimens and, for the cladotypic approach, by necessitating appropriate curation and access to up-to-date research facilities.