Gianfranco SAMA, well-known specialist for cerambycids, sent a long comment on the decision of the ICZN concerning the deposition of holotypes:
Dear colleagues,
I received from my friend G. MAGNANI the first BUPRESTIS and, even though I don't publish on Buprestidae (but working on Cerambycidae I find a lot of them), I wish to talk about the question "holotypes in public collections".
It seems to me that the Commission is totally out of touch with reality; in the three last editions of the Code they have made ever bigger mistakes, introducing rules absolutely harmful for science, but with the latest proposal they have reached the height of idiocy. It is also surprising that somebody like Ted MACRAE doesn't understand it.
First of all, I think that nobody should decide about the property of private things. It is true that nothing in Nature can be private (or everything must be public), but nobody can oblige me to present to a Museum what I found through my own financial sacrifices and physical efforts. I totally agree to give paratypes of specimens (and I do it) of new taxa to a public institution of the country where I collected them, especially when there was collaboration during my research. But a holotype is out of the question; it must be preserved in my collection, because, working on taxonomy, I must use it continuously for comparison, especially if it is a unique type. Moreover, as an amateur, I use my holidays and my money for my collecting trips, I spend my time on preparation, my money on literature, publishing my papers and sending reprints; and finally somebody would legally rob the best results of my research. Well, under these conditions I could decide to end my work on systematics, and, like me, a lot of good systematists will do the same. We know that, at least in Europe, the most part of the best revisions of insects (but also of many other groups of animals) are written by non-professional entomologists.
MACRAE knows his reality and he trusts his museums, but he must understand that the code will be valid for all the world (including countries where a trusted museum often doesn't exist) and for the future.
Regarding the "guaranteeing the preservation of valuable specimens for all future workers" I want to propose some examples or items of discussion and I hope that Mr Ted MACRAE will read it:
1. This year I was in Jordan, where I saw the entomological collections and, in collaboration with the University of this country and the Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature, but totally at my own expense, I collected new species of Cerambycidae. After the description, I shall send paratypes to the university collections (where anybody, students and Anthrenus included, can lay hands on). I can imagine the bad end of the holotype of a new species described by a Jordan entomologist and deposited in this Museum. I can also imagine what bad end will befall the request of a specialist who needs this holotype for his studies. This example is valid, of course, for any museum of similar countries.
2. I will suggest to the Commission (or MACRAE) to ask for the loan of types of Russian entomologists like MÉNÉTRIES, JAKOVLEV, SUVOROV, PLAVILSTSHIKOYV, a.s.o., or the types of new described species, also recently, by entomologists from Iraq, Iran or Turkey; or also to ask for one of my holotypes to the small museum of my city (eternally without funds and staff) if in the future I would decide to deposit them there.
3. During the first years of my entomological activity, collaborating with the Museum of Natural History of Verona, where the curator was an entomologist, I deposited there the holotypes of some new species of Cerambycidae discovered during my trips to southern Italy. Some years later the curator retired and was replaced by a geologist who stopped any collaboration with private workers on entomology. From that time I'm unable not only to receive, but also to see my types and I'm not sure that they still exist.
4. Museum Prague - I recently visited the collections in order to study type materials. I remarked that the most representative species of Cerambycidae and the rarest ones are lost (robbed, and replaced by common species).
5. Museum Paris - As, after the death of my colleague A. VILLIERS, curator of the cerambycid collection, I did not manage to get by post types material, I visited during the last eight years some times this very important museum for studying the types of some old authors. Each time I have taken some types to study them at home and I returned those which I had the previous time. The problem is that, because of even more lacking of staff, the types returned after a loan are not put back into the respective boxes. Four years ago when I was the last time in the museum, I found the box with a lot of types returned by me some years before, stored and forgotten on a shelf, together with many other empty and full boxes. Probably this box is still there, because last week I got a letter from a French entomologist (not the curator) soliciting the restitution to the museum of a type I brought back five years ago!
6. Last year in Prague I got an absolutely fantastic cerambycid beetle (a single specimen) collected in Syria by a Czech friend for study. It was, of course, a new species and I would describe it. My friend agreed, but only if the holotype would remain in his collection. I described it, of course, with a nice colour photograph in the paper and all the world will know the new species, also in the future, even if preserved in a private collection. What will I do in future? Not describe the new species because the holotype must be deposited in a museum or describe it? Following the new rules, this new species would remain unknown to science.
This is the situation with the most part of public institutions which have only little money and only a few staff for preserving the collections. It seems that the Commission (and MACRAE too) lives on the moon.
Now, who will decide which dimension must a museum have to which I must give my holotypes? Any museum or only an important museum? As we saw, also the most important museums have big difficulties, but for the small ones the situation is tragic. Now, must I entrust as a present my holotypes to an institution clearly unable to preserve them?
I think that the best way for a specialist is to find a successor (as I'm doing), a young man to whom he entrusts his experience and his knowledge and who will continue his studies using his collection and library during his life and after his death.
Sincerely yours, G. S.
Gianfranco SAMA well known specialist for cerambycids sent a long comment on the decision of the ICZN
conceming the deposition of holotypes:
Dear colicauues,
I got by my friend G. MAGNANI the fast BUPRESTIS and, even that I don't publish on Buprestidac (but
working on Cerambycidae I find a lot of them) I wish talk about the question ”holotypes in public collections”.
Seems to me that the Commission is totally over the reality; in the three last editions of the Code they made
ever bigger mistakes introducing miles absolutely harmful for the science, but with the last proposal they
reached the top of the idiocy. It is also surprising that somebody as Ted MACRAE doesn't understand u.
First of all I think that nobody would decide about the property of private things. It is true that nothing in
Nature can be private (or everything must be public), but nobody can oblige me to present to a Muscum rvhat
I found through my own financial sacrifices and physical efforts. I totally agree 1o give paratypes of specimens
(and I do it) of new taxa to a public institution of the country where I collected them, especially when there
was a collaboration during my rescarches. But a holotype ts out of question; it must be preserved in my
collection, because. working on taxonomy, I must use it continuously for comparison, especially if it is a
unique type. Moreover, as an amateur, I use my holidays and my money for my collecting trips, I spend my
time for preparation, my money for literature, publishing my papers and sending reprints; and finally
somebody would legally robber the best results of my rescarches. Well, with tlus conditions I could decide to
end my work on systematic, and, like me, a lot of good systematics swill do the same. We know that, ar leastin
Europe, the most part of the best revisions of insects (bult also of many other groups of animals) are wetten by
not professional entomologists.
MACRAE knows his reality and he trusts his museums, but he must understand that the code will be valid
for all the world (including countries where a trusted muscum often doesn't exist) and for ihe future.
Regarding the "guaranteeing the preservation of valuable specimens for all future workers" I want to
propose some examples or items of discussion and i hope that Mr Ted MACRAE will read it:
I. This year I was in Jordan, where I saw the entomological collections and, in collaboration with the
University of this country and the Royal Society for the Conservation of the Nature, but totally at my charges,
I collected new species of Cerambycidac. After the description, I shall send paratypes for the university
collections (where anybody, students and Anthrenus included, can lay hands on). I can imagine the bad end of
the holotype of a new species described by a Jordan entomologist and deposited in this Muscum. I can also
ima-gine which bad end will have the request of a specialist who needs this holotype for his studies. This
example is valid, of course, for any museum of similar countries
2. I will suggest the Commission (or MACRAE) to ask for the loan of types of Russian entomologists like
MÉNÉTRIES, JAKOVLEV, SUVOROV, PLAVILSTSHIKOYV, a.s.o., or the types of new described species. also
recently, by entomotogists from Iraq, Iran or Turkey; or also to ask for one of my hototypes the little muscum
of my city (eternally without founds and staff) if in the future I would decide to deposit them there.
3. During the first vears of my entomologicat activity. collaborating with the Museum of Natural History
ot Verona, where the curator was an entomologist, I deposued there the holotypes of some new species of
Cerambycidac discovered during my trips to southern Haly. Some years later the curator has retired and he
was replaced by a geologist who stopped any collaboration with private workers on entomology From that
ume I'm unable not only to receive, but also to see my types and F'm not sure that thev still exist
4 Museum Prague » I recently visited the collections in order 10 study type matenals. I remarked ihat ihe
most representattve species of Cerambycidae and the rarest ones are lost (robbed. and replaced by common
species)
5. Muscum Paris - As. after the death of my colleague A VILLIERS curator of the cerambs ck colleeuon, I
did not manage to pet by post types material, I visited during the last cight vears some umes twMs very
important museum for studying the types of some old authors Each tume I have taken some types 10 study
them at home and I returned those which I had the previous ume The problem is that, because of even more
lackiog of staff, the types returned after a loan are not put back into the respective boxes. four vears ago uhen
Iavas the last time in the museum, I found the box with a lot of types returned by me some vears before, stored
and forgotten on a shelf, together with many other empty and full boxes. Probably this box is still there.
because the last week I got a letter from a French entomologist (not the curator) solicitng the restitution to the
museum of a type I brought back five ycars ago!
6. Last vear in Prague I got an absolutely fantastic cerambycid bectle (a single spucimen) collected in Syria
by a Czech friend for study. It was, of course, a new species and I would describe it. My friend agreed, but
. only if the holotype would remain in his collection. I described it, of course, with a nice colour photograph in
ihe paper and all the world will know the new species, also in the future, even if preserved in a private
collection. What will I dö in future? Not deseribe the new species because the holotype must be deposited in a
muscum or describe it? Following the new rules, this new species would remain unknown to science.
This is the situation with the most part of public institutions which have only littic money and only some
few staff for preserving the collections. It seems that the Commission (and MACRAL: 100) lives on the moon
Now, who wil decide which dimension must have the museum to which I must give my holotypes? Any
museum or only an important museum? As we saw, also the most important museums have big difficultics,
but för the small ones the situation is tragic. Now, I must entrust as a present my holotypes to an institution
clearly unable 10 preserve them?
| think that the best way for a specialist is to find a successor (as I'm doing). a young man tv whom he
entrusts his experience and his knowledge and who will continue his studies using his collection and library
during his live and after his death.
Sincerely yours G. S.
INSECTIFERA 7. 1 -- 35
-
Gävle maj 1999
Innehåll
2 Föreningen,
3 Redaktörens sidor
5 99:e Svenska Entomologmötet i Gävle
6 Insectifera och medlemsskap i föreningen i fortsättningen
6 Insektskurs på Gotland
7 ot Nya dagfjärilar i Sverige "
10 Clas Källander: Årets fjärilsfynd från Gästrikland 1998
23 Johan Höjer: Fjärilsrapport från Gästrikland 1998
30 Karl Källander: Fjärilar på världens tak
32 Ulf Nylander: Senaste nytt från ICZN
33 Ulf Nylander: Supplement nr 1
Curculionidae from the Philippines
34 Gianfranco Samas: Debattinlägg angående äganderätten till
holotyper
35 Innehåll