Amber Listserv / amber list serv/halotypes

[Ron Buckley]

Hi I am sending out to emails from Dennis Brothers concerning holotypes. Ron
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Denis Brothers" <Brothers at nu.ac.za>
To: <ronbuckley at fuse.net>; <philrea at gmx.co.uk>
Cc: <amber at ambericawest.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: amber science


>I think that it is time for me to provide a bit more clarity. First, I
> need to state that I am a member of the International Commission on
> Zoological Nomenclature, the body charged with the responsibility of
> overseeing and updating the International Code of Zoological
> Nomenclature (ICZN) and also making rulings on cases brought to the
> Commission where the provisions of the Code may have to be set aside in
> particular instances.
> 
> The ICZN glossary definition of a holotype is "The single specimen ...
> designated or otherwise fixed as the name-bearing type of a nominal
> species or subspecies when the nominal taxon is established." What this
> means is that the holotype is that single specimen which was chosen to
> be the reference specimen to be used for fixing the application of the
> name of a species. As we all know, being able to identify specimens
> correctly is critical, and the main use of the holotype is to enable
> someone to compare newly discovered specimens with the relevant
> holotypes and thereby make a judgment as to which species the new
> specimens belongs to and what its name is. This is why holotypes are so
> important scientifically and why they need to be properly preserved and
> made available for study. It also needs to be borne in mind that this
> applies indefinitely into the future - someone may need to examine the
> specimen in 200 years time. (Incidentally, zoological nomenclature
> starts in 1758 and all publications and types from then on are still
> relevant to us today.) There are a few other categories of type
> specimens which perform the same functions as holotypes (syntypes,
> lectotypes and neotypes), but there is no need to go into that detail
> here.
> 
> Article 72.10 of the ICZN reads "Holotypes ... are the bearers of the
> scientific names of all nominal species-group taxa (and indirectly all
> animal taxa). [Taxa are groups of organisms that have been named.] They
> are the international standards of reference that provide objectivity in
> zoological nomenclature and must be cared for as such ... They are to be
> held in trust for science by the persons responsible for their safe
> keeping." There follow three sets of recommendations as to how this
> should be done, but they are not mandatory requirements.
> 
> Given that background, Article 16.4.2 states "Every new specific and
> subspecific name published after 1999 ... must be accompanied in the
> original publication ... where the holotype or syntypes are extant
> specimens, by a statement of intent that they will be (or are) deposited
> in a collection and a statement indicating the name and location of that
> collection (see Recommendation 16C)." The Recommendation is that
> "authors should deposit type specimens in an institution that maintains
> a research collection, with proper facilities for preserving them and
> making them accessible for study". Note that the Article does not
> specify an institutional collection, but merely "a collection" - this is
> so that future workers will know where to look for the specimens.
> 
> Contrary to the earlier message, there is no "rule" in the Code which
> prevents type specimens being held in private collections, although this
> is certainly discouraged by the above recommendation. Only the Articles
> of the ICZN are mandatory, the Recommendations are desirable actions but
> not requirements. So, provided that a private collector behaves
> responsibly in caring for the type specimens in his/her collection and
> providing information about those specimens for scientific purposes when
> requested, there would be no contravention of the Code. A potential
> problem might arise should the specimens be sold to someone else, in
> that they might then be difficult to trace, but the new owner would then
> also be expected to care for them and make information available about
> them. Also, upon the death of the owner, a problem might arise (and this
> is where many problems with private collections have arisen in the
> past), in that the heirs may not have any appreciation of the scientific
> importance of the material and not treat it appropriately. I would
> suggest that to avoid such a situation it would be admirable to specify
> that such specimens should go to a particular institutional collection.
> (Also note that Article 16.4.2 permits a statement that type specimens
> will be deposited in a named collection in the future and this could be
> used in this context.)
> 
> I am very aware of the conflicts which arise when dealing with amber
> specimens which have considerable value in and of themselves apart from
> their potential scientific value. I would hate for a too strict
> interpretation of the ICZN to get in the way of scientific discovery and
> the sharing of information about such potentially critically important
> specimens in the scientific context of increasing knowledge about the
> biodiversity of this planet and its origins. Scientists usually do not
> have the financial resources to acquire such specimens for their work,
> and I would hope that the collectors and the scientists could come to
> some mutually cooperative agreement.
> 
> Denis
> 
> Prof. Denis J. Brothers, Head
> School of Botany & Zoology
> University of Natal
> Private Bag X01
> Scottsville
> 3209 SOUTH AFRICA
> tel: +27 (0)33 260 5102
> fax: +27 (0)33 260 5105
> e-mail: brothers at nu.ac.za
> 
>>>> Phil Rea <philrea at gmx.co.uk> 2003/09/30 11:19:24 AM >>>
> Very interesting information Ron. I can see why that would cause you a
> problem.
> 
> I am aware of many described holotypes in Baltic Amber that are held 
> privately over here in Europe, and I think it is a bit rich that
> ownership 
> details are contested in this way. I am also aware of many holotypes
> and 
> other specimens that have been freely donated to museums by
> collectors.
> 
> I can see their point regarding type material availability, but the
> fact 
> remains that if I owned the Mona Lisa, I would be entirely free to sell
> it. 
> Sure, the state (in my case the UK) could stop me from selling it
> abroad, 
> but if they did this, they would have to pay the full market value for
> it. 
> This has recently happened over here with a privately owned painting.
> Why 
> should Amber/Fossil material be any different?
> 
> They also stipulate that the risks of loss or damage, or even of 
> unavailability of the pieces are high with private collectors. Given
> the 
> truly pitiful state of many pieces of Amber in Museum collections, they
> 
> should perhaps evaluate their own methods first. Many of the collectors
> I 
> am aware of take excellent care of their collections, and having
> usually 
> collected for many years, they have dedicated a great deal of their
> time, 
> experience, life, and money in pursuit of their ideal collection, and
> most 
> certainly treat it with the care it deserves.
> 
> Without dedicated Amber collectors, there would be a great deal less 
> information available, and far fewer holotypes for scientists to see or
> 
> describe. It should be appreciated and borne in mind that much of the 
> ground work and specimen collection is done by collectors, not
> scientists, 
> and I think that it will discourage many people who have interesting
> items 
> within their collections to bring them to the attention of the
> scientific 
> world.
> 
> What may well happen (as with many other fields) is that important
> items in 
> private collections will not now see the light of day. What an
> unfortunate 
> and sad situation.
> 
> I think the last paragraph of  Ted Pike's e-mail sums it up nicely. The
> 
> opportunity to study many specimens will be lost. I hope that science
> is happy.
> 
> Phil.
> 
> p.s. There is an interesting paper on Amber preservation by Yvonne
> Shashoua 
> Ph.D. of the National Museum of Denmark at the link below:
> 
> http://www.natmus.dk/cons/reports/2002/amber/amber.pdf 
> 
> I should warn you that it is approximately 3100K :)
> 
> 
> At 00:01 30/09/2003, you wrote:
>>Hi , I recently posted a picture of the new scorpian and again was 
>>contacted to describe it. A discussion then came up as to why I
> couldnt 
>>have them describe the piece because of the ownership question. Here
> is a 
>>summary of what is really happening to ownership if described. I
> thought 
>>it was very impotant for you to be aware and receive this imformation.
> 
>>Thanks,Ron
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: <mailto:tmpike at shaw.ca>Ted Pike
>>To: <mailto:ronbuckley at fuse.net>Ron Buckley
>>Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 9:39 AM
>>Subject: Fw: amber science
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: <mailto:tmpike at shaw.ca>Ted Pike
>>To: <mailto:santiago-blay at nmnh.si.edu>santiago-blay at nmnh.si.edu 
>>Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 8:14 PM
>>Subject: amber science
>>
>>Dear Dr. Santiago-blay:
>>
>>First, a bit about me.  I completed a Ph. D. in Palaeobiology a few
> years 
>>ago studying amber insect Taphonomy.  The material was Canadian
> Cretaceous 
>>amber from Grassy Lake.  I have coauthored a few publications
> describing 
>>Cretaceous insects, among other things.
>>
>>Second, I congratulate you on the quality of your publications.  I
> have a 
>>few, and have read others.  You have been in this game far longer than
> I 
>>have, and must be far more intimately aware of the professional
> jealousies 
>>that surround amber work.  I am not affiliated with a University or a
> 
>>Museum, and I have no reputation to make or uphold.  Hence, what I
> have to 
>>say next is said out of concern for the science of palaeobiology, and
> not 
>>from any form of rivalry or competition.
>>
>>I know of no other area of taxonomy or systematics where scientific
> names 
>>are attached to specimens held in private hands.  My area of expertice
> is 
>>entomology, specifically Lepidoptera, but I am familiar with many 
>>Coleopterists, Hymenopterists, Ornithologists, Herpetologists, and 
>>Mammalogists, so what I say is based on a reasonable sample 
>>size.  However, in the study of fossils, and particularly amber
> fossils, 
>>holotypes are created and routinely left in private hands.  I know
> that 
>>the ICZN code allows this, but it also stipulates that the material
> does 
>>not belong to the private holder; it is held in trust for science.  A
> 
>>collector may retain the specimen, but he or she does not retain 
>>ownership.  I would like to suggest that the commission take up the 
>>question of the validity of names proposed where the holder is not
> aware 
>>of this stipulation.
>>
>>Regardless, security of the holotype, and availability for study to
> future 
>>researchers is also stipulated, and I don't know if the private
> collectors 
>>are aware of this.  The risks of loss or damage, or even of 
>>unavailability, taken when specimens are left in private hands are 
>>huge.  We, as descriptors, owe it to the future researchers to ensure
> our 
>>type material is available 5, 50 or 500 years from now.
>>
>>We also owe the collectors a fair shake.  It is our duty to inform
> them of 
>>the stipulations of the code regarding their material.  If they
> understand 
>>and agree to the limits the code places on their material, there are
> no 
>>issues.  But if they are not informed, serious ethical issues arise. 
> Some 
>>day, some museum will challenge the sale of a privately held 
>>holotype.  Thousands of dollars are at stake, and the law suits would
> 
>>bankrupt many institutions.
>>
>>I am sure you are aware of the recent discussions about this issue in
> 
>>European circles.  Many scientists will not describe privately held 
>>material, and many journals have editors who will not accept papers
> where 
>>holotype material is privately held.
>>
>>The cost of rare or unique amber specimens is often born by private 
>>collectors.  This drives the desire to retain ownership, and rightly 
>>so.  By not being forthright about what the ICZN says about ownership,
> we 
>>risk creating hostility at the very least, and, at the worst, rob the
> 
>>collector of the right to dispose of as he or she desires the material
> he 
>>or she has paid for.  I can only imagine how a private collector would
> 
>>feel to find out after the fact what the code says about ownership.
>>
>>It is sad that the desire to count coup by describing the oldest,
> first, 
>>or best of some zoological group over-rides the ethics of how we do 
>>business.  After all, the science can be done without formally naming
> a 
>>specimen.  Wouldn't it be better to get the science done, than to risk
> 
>>losing the opportunity to investigate material in private hands?
>>
>>Best in all,
>>Ted Pike
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please find our disclaimer at http://www.disclaimer.nu.ac.za
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> <<<<gwavasig>>>>
>