EDIT

removing the DISCUSS note from the title since a consensus on a solution has been found by mail.

[Soraya]:

In principle the format outlined below (by Ralf et al) is good, but I am not sure about eliminating previous type data once a lectotype is selected. Even if a reference is given to the lectotypication, some people might want to have the original information. It seems then that the format should allow the flexibility to include "extras" like a reference and/or notes about the type, right? For example:

Holotype: Borneo, Sabah, Sandakan Ramos 1490 (B (presumed destroyed); isotypes: L, PNH).
Holotype: Borneo, S Kalimantan, Sg. Dusun, Korthals & Muller s.n. (L; isotype: fragment FI).
Lectotype: Madagascar, Ile Sainte marie, Tafondru forest, March 1847 Boivin (P, indicated in Palms of Madagascar 1995, etc etc)

[Bill]:

What about this modification as well, which could apply to most examples:

Type: Borneo, Sabah, Sandakan Ramos 1490 (Holotype: B (presumed destroyed); isotypes: L, PNH).
[Based on Soraya's original: Holotype: Borneo, Sabah, Sandakan Ramos 1490 (B (presumedstroyed); isotypes: L, PNH).]

This method of type citing is common in the literature.

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

[Bill]:

What about this modification as well, which could apply to most examples:

Type: Borneo, Sabah, Sandakan Ramos 1490 (Holotype: B (presumed destroyed); isotypes: L, PNH).

[Based on Soraya's original: Holotype: Borneo, Sabah, Sandakan Ramos 1490 (B (presumedstroyed); isotypes: L, PNH).]

This method of type citing is common in the literature.

[Ralf]:

to add such comments like "presumed destroyed", questions-marks, exclamation-marks etc. are no problem at all. There is already a certain "biodiversity" in our database. And we should allow as much freedom as possible.

[Irina]:

some entomologists cite the date and the collector for type data, others (including me) don't. I would only do this in the materials section. We always cite the sex of the specimen and there also needs to be an option to add the stage (adult, puparium) or other zoologist might need to add whether they have bones, shells, feathers or whatever. I have to check where that information would go.

I don't know why you have the '!' after the acronyms and what the number after 'Baker et al.' means.

Do we need to define how the locality, date, collector, etc. should be formated or will this just depend on what was imported?

[Irina] continued ...:

I would use one of these options:

1) Holotype: [locality], [collecting date], [collector] ([sex] [depository], [ID number])
2) Holotype [sex]: [locality], [collecting date], [collector] ([depository], [ID number])
3) Type: [locality], [collecting date], [collector] (HT [sex] [depository], [ID number])

for lectotypes (and neotypes):

4) Lectotype: [locality], [collecting date], [collector] ([sex] [depository], [ID number])
5) Lectotype [sex]: [locality], [collecting date], [collector] ([depository], [ID number])
6) Type: [locality], [collecting date], [collector] (LT [[designated by Author Year]] [sex] [depository], [ID number])

for syntypes:

7) Syntype(s): [locality], [collecting date], [collector] ([number][sex] [depository], [ID number]); [locality], [collecting date], [collector] ([number][sex] [depository], [ID number]).
8) Type(s): [locality], [collecting date], [collector] (ST [number][sex] [depository], [ID number]); [locality], [collecting date], [collector] (ST [number][sex] [depository], [ID number]). 

I prefer the following:

Type(s): [locality], [collecting date], [collector] ([kind of type] [[designated by Author Year]] [sex] [depository], [ID number]); [repeat for syntypes].

[depository] includes information like type lost.

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

[Irina] continued ...:

I would use one of these options:

1) Holotype: [locality], [collecting date], collector

2) Holotype [sex]: [locality], [collecting date], collector

3) Type: [locality], [collecting date], collector

for lectotypes (and neotypes):

4) Lectotype: [locality], [collecting date], collector

5) Lectotype [sex]: [locality], [collecting date], collector

6) Type: [locality], [collecting date], designated by Author Year [sex] [depository], [ID number]" class="external">collector

for syntypes:

7) Syntype(s): [locality], [collecting date], collector; [locality], [collecting date], collector.

8) Type(s): [locality], [collecting date], collector; [locality], [collecting date], collector.

I prefer the following:

Type(s): [locality], [collecting date], designated by Author Year [sex] [depository], [ID number]" class="external">collector; [repeat for syntypes].

[Ralf:

I don't think that we need to define all the details concerning type informations. There are too many preferences and individualisms. Some botanists like the "!" after the acronym (type seen), some not - to name but one example. What we need is to reduce the duplication of type data presentation in the case of any isotype situations.

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

[Irina] continued ...:

I would use one of these options:

1) Holotype: [locality], [collecting date], collector

2) Holotype [sex]: [locality], [collecting date], collector

3) Type: [locality], [collecting date], collector

for lectotypes (and neotypes):

4) Lectotype: [locality], [collecting date], collector

5) Lectotype [sex]: [locality], [collecting date], collector

6) Type: [locality], [collecting date], designated by Author Year [sex] [depository], [ID number]" class="external">collector

for syntypes:

7) Syntype(s): [locality], [collecting date], collector; [locality], [collecting date], collector.

8) Type(s): [locality], [collecting date], collector; [locality], [collecting date], collector.

I prefer the following:

Type(s): [locality], [collecting date], designated by Author Year [sex] [depository], [ID number]" class="external">collector; [repeat for syntypes].

[depository] includes information like type lost.

[Ralf]:

I don't think that we need to define all the details concerning type informations. There are too many preferences and individualisms. Some botanists like the "!" after the acronym (type seen), some not - to name but one example. What we need is to reduce the duplication of type data presentation in the case of any isotype situations.

[Irina]:

Well, then we could do this:

Type(s): [locality], [collecting date], [collector] ([kind of type] {[designated by Author Year: page]} [number][sex] [depository], [ID number]{; isotypes: [depository]}); {repeat for syntypes}

The '{ }' would only apply for the respective cases, i.e. lecto-/neotypes, isotypes and syntypes. If paratypes are cited they could be dealt with the same way as syntypes.

Syntype example:

Types: United Kingdom. London (ST 4? BMNH); United Kingdom. Sheffield (ST 2? BMNH).

Paratype example:

Types: United Kingdom. London (HT ? BMNH); United Kingdom. Sheffield (PT 2? BMNH).

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

[Bill]:

What about this modification as well, which could apply to most examples:

Type: Borneo, Sabah, Sandakan Ramos 1490 (Holotype: B (presumed destroyed); isotypes: L, PNH).

[Based on Soraya's original: Holotype: Borneo, Sabah, Sandakan Ramos 1490 (B (presumedstroyed); isotypes: L, PNH).]

This method of type citing is common in the literature.

[Ralf]:

to add such comments like "presumed destroyed", questions-marks, exclamation-marks etc. are no problem at all. There is already a certain "biodiversity" in our database. And we should allow as much freedom as possible.

[Bill]:

I was really referring to the fact that the paragraph begins "Type" with the various specimens qualified with kind of type, rather than starting "Holotype" for example. It is hard to make suggestions without knowing exactly what the CDm can deliver though.

In general, I agree that we need as much flexibilty as possible.

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

[Bill]:

What about this modification as well, which could apply to most examples:

Type: Borneo, Sabah, Sandakan Ramos 1490 (Holotype: B (presumed destroyed); isotypes: L, PNH).

[Based on Soraya's original: Holotype: Borneo, Sabah, Sandakan Ramos 1490 (B (presumedstroyed); isotypes: L, PNH).]

This method of type citing is common in the literature.

[Ralf]:

to add such comments like "presumed destroyed", questions-marks, exclamation-marks etc. are no problem at all. There is already a certain "biodiversity" in our database. And we should allow as much freedom as possible.

[Bill]:

I was really referring to the fact that the paragraph begins "Type" with the various specimens qualified with kind of type, rather than starting "Holotype" for example. It is hard to make suggestions without knowing exactly what the CDm can deliver though.

In general, I agree that we need as much flexibilty as possible.

[Ralf]:

we have been discussing this alternative scenarios yesterday. We would prefer mentioning "Holotype" at the beginning. "Type" in the beginning should be restricted to those cases we don't know the quality of type yet (e.g., somewhat unclear protologues). Anyway, these alternative treatments are implemented in the editor and should not create any problems.

Irina: I'm fine with that...

new input on this topic from Thomas Janßen regarding the Flore d'Afrique Central portal:

Hallo Andreas,

wie gestern besprochen anbei das Format für die Darstellung der vollständigen Typusinformationen auf dem Synonyms-Tab im Portal, wie es uns sinnvoll erscheint. (Typi-Format-FloreAfriqueCentral.doc)

Die Paratypen sind formal keine Typen (aber Orignalmaterial aus dem Protolog). Die sollten in kleinerer Schrift oder notfalls gar nicht angezeigt werden.

Vielen Dank und viele Grüße,

Thomas

Example screenshot:

formatting rules as suggested by Thomas Janßen:

Sortierung:

1. Status der Typen: a) holo, lecto, neo, syn, b) epi, paralecto, c) para (wenn überhaupt) – die jeweiligen iso immer direct mit dazu

2. Land

3. Sammler

4. Nummer

Aufbau der Typusinformationen:

Land: Lokalität mit Höhe und Koordinaten; Datum; Sammler Nummer (Herbar/Barcode, Typusart; Herbar/Barcode, Typusart …)

see also Typi-Format-FloreAfriqueCentral.doc