Amber Listserv / amber list serve/2nd email on holotypes

[Ron Buckley]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Denis Brothers" <Brothers at nu.ac.za>
To: <tmpike at shaw.ca>
Cc: <amber at ambericawest.com>; <ronbuckley at fuse.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 3:06 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: amber science


> 
> Dear Ted,
> 
> I take your points but I still think you are viewing this too
> restrictively. A specimen which undeniably belongs to someone does not
> have its status of ownership changed simply because it has been
> designated as a holotype. I know of many instances where type specimens
> have been sold - generally in situations where a private collector has
> sold them to some institution. The issue to my mind is merely that the
> owner of a type must recognise the responsibilities that go along with
> that and ensure as far as possible that if s/he disposes of the specimen
> the new owner also recognises and accepts the situation. 
> 
> Your comparison with trust funds is, to my mind, not all that relevant.
> Particular assets of such funds can certainly be sold, provided that
> this benefits the trust financially, and the new owners of such assets
> can then deal with them in whatever way they like. This happens all the
> time as investment portfolios are shuffled. If it would benefit
> "science" for someone to sell a holotype to a collection where it is
> more easily accessible for study, or for whatever other reason, then
> there is no reason to discourage that.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Denis
> 
>>>> Ted Pike <tmpike at shaw.ca> 2001/09/30 11:43:09 PM >>>
> Dear Dennis:
> 
> Thanks for getting involved in this discussion.  The clarification of
> the
> code is exactly as I had interpreted it.  However, the issue focuses
> not on
> possession, or holding in a private collection, but on ownership and
> all the
> rights that that implies.  There is no argument that a private
> individual
> can have a holotype specimen in his or her collection.  I don't think
> it is
> being made clear to collectors, however, what holding in trust means. 
> Can I
> sell a specimen that I am holding in trust for science?  Can I consider
> it
> mine?  I don't think so.  As I read the article in question, ownership
> is
> transferred from me when someone designates something I own as a
> holotype.
> The new owner is science.  I am obligated to act in certain ways when
> holding anything else in trust (stocks, funds, real estate).  If I
> sell
> something in a trust fund, it must stay in the trust fund.  Why are
> holotypes exempt?
> 
> Best in all,
> Ted Pike
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ron Buckley" <ronbuckley at fuse.net>
> To: "Ted Pike" <tmpike at shaw.ca>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 7:59 AM
> Subject: Fw: Fw: amber science
> 
> 
>>
>> ----- 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>>>>
>> >
>>
> 
>