An Introduction to the Botanical Type Specimen Register

20
of types are designated. Because the nomenclatural
rules have changed through the years and the well-
developed modern terminology is of relatively re-
cent origin, it is natural that types have not been
designated according to any consistent standards
through the years.
When a type specimen is first registered, its typi-
fication is designated by whatever term is indicated
in the data source, which usually is a secondary
source (card file, specimen file, monograph), unless
there is firm evidence to indicate otherwise. Thus
any type designation, whether legal or illegal by
present nomenclatural rules, may appear in the
Type Register.
At the United States National Herbarium, it was
customary for many years to designate two basic
categories in the segregated collection of type
specimens: “type” and “type collection.” Usually,
“type” has meant what would now be called “holo-
type,” while “type collection” has embraced syn-
types, isotypes, and even paratypes according to
present terminology. “Types” often prove not to be
holotypes, however, and it would be very wrong to
draw simple equations between the older and newer
terms. The collection of type specimens at the New
York Botanical Garden provides another example
of the problems with archaic terminology. Here the
categories “type” and “cotype” were used for many
years, and now “type” often but certainly not always
translates to “holotype,” while “cotype” may desig-
nate any of the kinds of types masquerading under
“type collection” at the US.
The authority for designation of kind of type
is the ICBN. An auxiliary, highly authoritative
standard reference is “An Annotated Glossary of
Botanical Nomenclature,” by McVaugh et al.
(1968). LVhenever the original specimens and liter-
ature can be examined and the kind of type vali-
dated in accordance with the rules, proper termi-
nology is used. By this terminology, the Register
is designed to include primarily lzolotypes, isotypes,
syntypes, and isosyntypes. As explained earlier, the
present file structure is not designed to handle lec-
totypes and neotypes (or isolectotypes and isoneo-
types), although these are entered sometimes by
using the fourth geographic field (“Locality”) as a
remarks field for the second bibliographic citation.
Paratypes are excluded unless other, higher order
types cannot be located and there is reason to be-
lieve that the paratypes will become important later
SMITHSONIAN COSTRIBUTIOSS TO BOTANY
for purposes of lectotypification. Fragments of holo-
types, isotypes, or syntypes may be included at the
discretion of the editor (see under “Scope of Reg-
ister”).
When a holotype has not been designated, as in
all the older literature, one usually is faced with a
“syntype situation,” which often is difficult to re-
solve precisely on the basis of the ZCBN’s terminol-
ogy. A syntype, according to the ZCBN (Article 7,
Note 3), is “any one of two or more specimens cited
by the author when no holotype was designated, or
any one of two or more specimens simultaneously
designated as types,” and an isosyntype is a dupli-
cate of a syntype (see “Guide for the Determination
of Tjpes” in the ZCBN). “Duplicate” in this con-
text is defined as “part of a single gathering made
by a collector at one time.” In other words, a “dup-
licate” is one of two or more specimens constituting
a single “collection,” as this term ordinarily is used
by plant taxonomists and is being used in the con-
text of the Type Register.
The distinction betxveen syntype and isosyntype
hinges on such relatively subjective criteria as
“specimen citation” and whether or not the original
author had the specimens in hand (cf. definitions
of McVaugh et al., 1968), which are matters for
specialists to determine. The older literature, where
the problem of syntypes arises, is well known to be
less than precise in the manner of citing specimens.
The editorial staff of the Type Register must re-
strict its interpretations to the letter of the ZCBA‘,
and for the most part such fine distinctions as be-
tween syntype and isosyntype necessarily are defer-
red for the proper specialists to make at a later
time. To do otherwise would be to assume the
specialist’s ro!e and responsibility and to introduce
false precision at this stage. Accordingly, the term
syntype is used for both syntypes and isosyntypes
except in the rare cases where the evidence for the
isos) nt) pe designation is clear and convincing.
A final point on the use of the term syntype con-
cerns the distinction between single collections and
multiple collections. Throughout the older litera-
ture there are numerous cases where a single col-
lection has been designated as the type collection,
either explicitly or implicitly by virtue of being the
only collection cited, even though a holotype has
not been set apart. hiany specialists would single
out a presumptive holotype in these cases on the
hsis of the rpecimen (s) which the original author