Xerophilia - another free online journal

Share information on Cacti Books, Websites, Periodicals, etc.
User avatar
Licespray
Posts: 352
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:26 pm

Re: Xerophilia - another free online journal

Post by Licespray »

So I have only read the first page of this thread so far but I just wanted to make a comment on private collections being used for holotypes.

Here in Australia that is an instant dismissal for any publication attempting to be made. Specimens must be in a public collection (example: state museum) and this available to future people. Sure George may allow free access to his specimens, but what happens in 50 years when his gone? Will the next owner allow anyone to come view, take measurements etc from it? Possibly not. If it’s a public collection then it will always be accessible and that’s a big reason private collections for publications (of any specimen I’ll add, not just a holotype!) are unacceptable.

Source: first hand experience as a fossil collector who at my own expense works with museums.
Ferocactus best cactus :mrgreen:
DaveW
Posts: 7076
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:36 pm
Location: Nottingham, England/UK

Re: Xerophilia - another free online journal

Post by DaveW »

Basically as I understand it a type specimen for plants must be dead and preserved and deposited in a recognised herbarium, which I think that is what you mean Licespray? I am sure live types are not permitted because they can often get thrown away if they die without their remains being preserved. Usually the plant that is preserved is the one the author is describing which is then used to produce the dead type specimen. Backeberg used to quote live types of cacti in collections, but as he did not preserve a type in a herbarium as the rules required at the time many of his names were invalid.

See:-

https://ecologyforthemasses.com/2019/09 ... specimens/

The "Rules" are never retrospective though. As long as the describer followed the rules in force at the time, even before a preserved type was required, that name is still valid. However after a new rule comes in all later describers then have to conform to it to be valid. An instance of such a rule change is regarding the diagnosis in the original description. From 1935 it had to be a few lines in Latin describing the species plus the publication in a recognised scientific printed Journal. In the very early days even a name printed in a nurseryman's catalogue could be valid.

However a few years ago this was changed so the diagnosis of a new species can be in either Latin or English, with the rest of the text in any other language desired, and also published electronically in an Internet specialist journal, no longer needing to be printed anymore. That however did not retrospectively legitimise any name published with only an English diagnosis during the period only a Latin one was required, they would still be invalid.

I would agree with the remarks on the first page you refer to Licespray. It is always best if the type specimen is deposited in the premier herbarium rather than the smaller private one, even if that is considered a recognised herbarium.
Post Reply