Consortium for

Educational
Communication

Module on
TYPIFICATION AND KINDS
OF TYPES
By
 ZafarShahdad Khan
Assistant Professor
Botany
Govt. College Baramulla
Mobile No. 9419438080
Email: zafarsk06@gmail.com
 Consortium for Educational Communication

Text
Introduction
Scientists identify new organisms and determine how to
place them into an existing classification scheme. The first and
the foremost important thing in this regard is to apply a proper
name to each distinctive type of organism which is universally
accepted. A botanical name, by itself, is only a phrase (of one to
three words); for a name to be meaningful, it is necessary to be
sure what it applies to.
The names of different taxa are based on the type method, by
which it is meant that a certain representative of a group is the
source of the name for that group. This representative is called
the nomenclatural type or simply the type. Describing species
and infra-specific taxa, and determining type specimens for them
is part of scientific nomenclature and alpha taxonomy. The type
need not be the most typical member of the group, it only fixes
the name of a particular taxon and the two are permanently
associated. Hence a type or typus is that constituent element of
a taxon to which the name of the taxon is permanently attached,
whether as a correct name or as a synonym.
According to Principle 2 of the International Code of Botanical
Nomenclature (ICBN) “The application of names of taxonomic
groups is determined by means of nomenclatural types, and the
correct name of a taxon is based on circumscription, position,
and rank” (Art. 6.5). It means that scientific names must be
associated with some physical entity, known as a nomenclatural
type or simply type.
A nomenclatural type anchors the meaning of a name. If there
is an argument as to what kind of plant the author of a name
meant by a particular name, one examines the type specimen.   No
matter what taxonomic treatment is followed, the name must be
used in a sense that includes its type specimen.   If, as occasionally
happens, the author of a new name provides a description that
does not match the type specimen, it is the type specimen, not
the description, that determines what kind of plant is called by
the name in question. The type serves the purpose of acting as a
reference for the name, upon which the name is based. If there is
ever any doubt as to whether a name is correct or not, the type
may be studied.
A nomenclatural type is generally a specimen, e.g., a standard
 Consortium for Educational Communication

herbarium “sheet” specimen, a real plant (or one or more parts

of a plant or a collection of small plants), dead and kept safe,
“curated”, in a herbarium (or the equivalent for fungi).The type
need not always be a herbarium specimen sheet or a plant, a
detailed drawing, painting, etc., depicting the plant; from the early
days of plant taxonomy can also act as type for the said taxon. An
illustration can also be designated as a type in situations where
a dried plant was difficult to transport and hard to keep safe for
the future, or the specimen of the early days of the botany which
have since been lost or damaged.
A detailed picture of something that can be seen only
through a microscope can also be considered as a type because
a tiny ‘plant’ on a microscopic slide makes for a poor type: the
microscopic slide may be lost or damaged, or it may be very
difficult to find the ‹plant› in question among whatever else is
on the microscopic slide. An illustration in such cases makes for
a much more reliable type (Art 37.5 of the Vienna Code, 2006).
Typification
Adherence to the type principle did not become mandatory
until 1958. Prior to that time, when taxonomists published a new
name, they frequently simply listed several different specimens
that exemplified what they meant by the name, without
identifying any particular specimen as the ‘top dog’ among the
examples. From 1958 onwards, however, the designation of
type specimens became mandatory, though still it was not fully
explicit. It was enough to specify the only few details about a
type specimen, such as collector’s name, collector’s number,
place and date of collection. However, the problem was that, if
a collector made several collections, with several duplicates, of
which everyone could be a type and if these duplicates turnout to
be new species, or subspecies etc. To resolve this problem, the
processes of typification was made more explicit since 1990; and
it has been necessitated to identify the exact specimen that is
to be the nomenclatural type of the taxon, and the herbarium in
which that particular specimen is deposited and, if possible, the
accession number of the specimen should be specified as well.
It is only names that have types, not taxa, so the typification
is an entirely nomenclatural procedure. The type is usually
the gathering with which the name is permanently associated.
Therefore, it needs not to be typical of the species in terms of
population variability; it may in fact even be an extreme variant.
 Consortium for Educational Communication

It is, therefore, no more important taxonomically than any other

specimen; its importance lies entirely in fixing the application of
the name. If a species is based on a single gathering, it is very
unlikely that the next gathering of it, particularly if it is from
another area, will closely match the type.
Lack of exact agreement with the original description or
type specimen certainly does not mean that the new material
necessarily represents a different species. In case of a new
species being described, it is of course very desirable if we are
in a position to do so to choose an ‘average’ specimen as the
type. Genera and families, particularly those established by
early taxonomists, tend to be named after species that are more
“typical” for them, but here too this is not always the case. Hence,
the term name-bearing type or onomatophore is sometimes used,
to denote the fact that biological types do not define “typical”
individuals or taxa, but rather fix a scientific name to a specific
operational taxonomic unit. Type specimens are theoretically
even allowed to be aberrant or deformed individuals or color
variations, though this is rarely chosen to be the case, as it
makes it hard to determine to which population the individual
belonged.
Type method
When identifying material, a scientist attempts to apply a
taxon name to a specimen or a group of specimens based on:
• his or her understanding of the relevant taxa,
• having read the type description(s), and
• examination of all the type material of all of the rel-
evant taxa.
If there are more than one named type specimens that
all appear to be the same taxon, then the oldest name takes
precedence, and is considered to be the correct name of the
material in hand. If on the other hand, the taxon appears never
to have been named at all, then the scientist or another qualified
expert picks a type specimen and publishes a new name and an
official description.
This can be exemplified as in case of Pinus gregii. The name
of the taxon was published in Prodromus systematis naturalis
vegetabilis in 1868 by A. P. de Candolle without citing a holotype
described from the collections of Josiah Gregg who collected it
 Consortium for Educational Communication

in 1848 with collection number 402 from Mexico. The lectotype

was later on designated by Farjon A.K. & B.T. Styles from type
protologue and published in Flora Neotropica in 1997 as valid
name. The same situation is with most of the Linnaean plant
names because Linnaeus and his contemporaries had no concept
of nomenclatural types; it is the effort of later taxonomists, trying
to fix the application of Linnaean names that have resulted in the
typification of Linnaean species.
It is pertinent to mention here that, the usage of the term
type is somewhat complicated by slightly different uses in botany
and zoology. Note that in the ICBN and ICZN (International
Code of Zoological Nomenclature), the definitions of types are
similar in intent, but not identical in terminology or underlying
concept. For example, in both the  ICBN  and the  ICZN  a
«neotype» is a type that was later appointed in the absence
of the original holotype. In the ICZN, however, the Commission
is empowered to replace a holotype with a “neotype”, when
the holotype turns out to lack important diagnostic features
needed to distinguish the species from its close relatives. For
example, the crocodile-like 
archosaurian reptile Parasuchus
hislopi Lydekker, 1885 (Fig.1a) was described based on a pre-
maxillary rostrum (part of the snout), but this is no longer
sufficient to distinguish Parasuchus from its close relatives. This
made the name Parasuchus hislopi a doubtful name (nomen
dubium). Latter it was proposed by the paleontologist Sankar
Chatterjee  that a new type specimen with a complete skeleton
be designated and the proposal was agreed upon by ICZN and a
neotype with desired characters was subsequently designated.
Although in reality biologists may examine many specimens
(when available) of a new taxon before writing an official published
species description, nonetheless, under the formal rules for
naming species (the International Code of Nomenclature), a single
type must be designated, as part of the published description. A
type description must include a diagnosis (typically, a discussion
of similarities to and differences from closely related species),
and an indication of where the type specimen or specimens are
deposited for examination. The geographical location where a
type specimen was originally found is known as its type locality.
In the case of parasites, the term type host (or symbiotype) is
used to indicate the host organism from which the type specimen
was obtained.
 Consortium for Educational Communication

A taxon is a set of scientifically named grouping of organisms

with other like organisms, that includes some organisms and
excludes others, based on a detailed published description (for
example a species description) and on the provision of type
material, which is usually available to scientists for examination
in a major museum, research collection, or similar institution.
Note that a type fixes only a name to a single representative
of the taxon. A type does not determine the circumscription of
the taxon; therefore, a taxon is independent of its type species
or specimen. For example, the common dandelion (Fig.1b) is a
controversial taxon: some botanists consider it to consist of over
a hundred small species, although most botanists regard it to be
a single species. The type of the name Taraxacum officinale is
the same whether the circumscription of the species includes all
those small species or whether the circumscription is limited to
only one small species among the others. In this case, the name
Taraxacum officinale is the same and the type of the name is the
same, but the extent of what the name actually applies to varies
greatly.
Normally, we think of types as referring to names of species
or infra specific taxa. However, type specimens may serve as
references for the names of higher taxonomic ranks as well. For
example, the type specimen for a genus name is the same as the
one for the species within the genus that was published first. The
type specimen for a family name is the same as the one for the
genus within the family that was published first.
The ICBN has devised certain guidelines for proper use of
typification, which are as follows:
1. Only a species or an infra specific taxon can have a type of its
own. For most new taxa (published on or after 1 January 2007,
Article 37) at these ranks a type should not be an illustration.
2. A genus has the same type as that of one of its species
(Article 10).
3. A family has the same type as that of one of its genera
(Article 10).
Types of type specimens
The ICBN recognizes seven kinds of nomenclatural types
(Article 9), the most important of which is the holotype. The other
types are: isotype syntype, paratype, lectotype, neotype, and
epitype. These types are detailed as follows:
 Consortium for Educational Communication

Holotype
A holotype is the single physical example (single specimen
or a group of small individuals on a single herbarium sheet, or
illustration, etc.) of an organism upon which a name is based,
originally used or designated at the time of publication of the name
of the species or infra specific name. It serves as the definitive
reference source for any questions of identity or nomenclature. It
is recommended that a holotype be deposited in an internationally
recognized herbarium and cited as one of the criteria for the valid
publication of a name. Holotypes constitute the most valuable
of specimens and are kept under safekeeping in a recognized
herbarium. A holotype is not necessarily ‘typical’ of that taxon,
although ideally it should be. Sometimes, just a fragment of an
organism is the holotype, for example in the case of fossil taxa.
Examples: Begonia incana Lindl. is a species name based on
the holotype collected by Lindley in 1843, and the specimen is
deposited in Cambridge University Herbarium (Fig 2). Similarly,
the name Arachis glandulifera Stalker is based on the holotype
specimen collected by H. T. Stalker on 12th September1990,
and the herbarium sheet of the said specimen is deposited in
Herbarium of North Carolina State University (Fig.3)
In the absence of a holotype (e.g. if it was lost or got damaged)
another type may be selected, out of a range of different kinds of
types, depending on the case.
Isotype
An isotype is a duplicate specimen of the holotype, collected
at the same time by the same person from the same population.
If several branches of a tree are collected at same time, one
specimen acts as holotype and the remaining as isotypes. The
ICBN recommends that isotypes be designated in the valid
publication of a new name. Isotypes are valuable in that they
are reliable duplicates of the same taxon and may be distributed
to numerous other herbaria to make it easier for taxonomists of
various regions to obtain a specimen of the new taxon.
Example: The specimen shown in Fig. 5 has been selected by
Stalker as an isotype for Arachis glandulifera with the accession
number 30091, for which he has also designated holotype (Fig.
3). Both the holotype and isotype with accession number 30091
have been deposited in Herbarium of North Carolina State
University.
 Consortium for Educational Communication

Syntype
In biological nomenclature, a syntype is a term used to indicate
specimens with a special status as they belong to the original
collections and from among which a lectotype is designated. In
other words a syntype is each specimen of a type series from
which neither a holotype, nor a lectotype has been designated.
The syntypes collectively constitute the name-bearing type. ICBN
describes a syntype as, “any specimen cited in the protologue when
no holotype was designated, or any one of two or more specimens
simultaneously designated as types”. Often word cotype is also
used synonymously with syntypes - a term no longer recognized
in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. 
Lectotype
A lectotype is a specimen that is selected from the original
material to serve as the type when either no holotype was
designated at the time of publication, or if the holotype is missing,
or if the original type consisted of more than one specimen or
taxon. In biological nomenclature, a lectotype is a kind of name-
bearing type. In other words, when a species was originally
described on the basis of multiple specimens, one of those may
be designated as the lectotype. It means that a lectotype is the
single specimen selected from among the syntypes to serve as
the only name-bearing type specimen, and is formally designated
as such. Having a single name-bearing type reduces the chances
for confusion, especially when there are chances of syntypes to
contain specimens of more than one species.
Example: The name Orobanche schultzii Mutel was given by
Mutel in flora of France in 1835 with a description without citing the
exact specimen as a type material. The name was later changed by
Pomal as Phelipanche schultzii (Mutel) Pomel in 1874. However,
Pomal based this name on the description of Mutel without citing
the type. The name was later typified from Mutel’s collection by
Michael J. Y. Foley in 2001 by a lectotype selected from Mutel’s
herbarium as one of the four specimens pasted on a herbarium
sheet (Fig.4).
Paratype
Any additional specimen other than the holotype, listed in the
type series in the original description, is called a paratype. Paratypes
are not name-bearing types. In systematic botany, a paratype
is defined by the ICBN as “a specimen cited in the protologue
(i.e., the original description) that is neither the holotype nor
 Consortium for Educational Communication

an isotype, nor one of the syntypes if two or more specimens

were simultaneously designated as types” (Art. 9.5). Under this
definition, paratypes are not necessarily explicitly identified as
such in the original description.
Paratypes are useful in that they allow subsequent botanists to
know what collections were examined by the original author and
considered part of the same taxon in preparing the description of
a new taxon, particularly when the holotype and isotypes may be
unavailable, of poor quality, or lacking in certain details.
Paratypes are also useful in providing one or more collections
from which a lectotype may be designated if no holotype, isotype,
syntype, or isosyntype is designated (Art. 9.10).
Neotype
A neotype is a second class of specimens belonging to non-
original collection that is selected to serve as the type when all of
the material on which the name was originally based is missing.
For example the type collection for the name Aesculus sylvatica
Bartram, representing a neotype, was collected by J.W Harden in
absence of Bartram’s collection who first proposed the name with
description. The specimen has been deposited in Herbarium of
the University of Michigan (Fig.10).
Epitype
Epitype is a specimen (or illustration) that is selected to serve
as the type if the holotype, lectotype, or neotype is ambiguous with
respect to the identification and diagnosis of the taxon. The Article
9. 7 of ICBN mentions a potential problem in typification. When a
type specimen (regardless of status), for a variety of reasons no
longer bears structures essential to the correct identification of the
organism, while still bearing other, non-essential structures (e.g.
flowers without stamens; fungus basidioma without hymenium,
etc.), it can no longer serve as a type, but Art. 9.7 makes provision
by designation of an epitype. An epitype is especially useful when
the holotype or lectotype is an illustration from which microscopic
characters cannot be seen.
Some other kinds of ‘types’ have also been proposed from
time to time, but they are not formally recognized in the ICBN.
Some of these are:
Paralectotype
Any additional specimen from among a set of syntypes, after
 Consortium for Educational Communication

a lectotype has been designated from among them. These are

not name-bearing types.
The specimen shown in the Fig. 9 depicts photograph
of paralectotype specimen for the name Prunus persica var.
nucipersica (white glory) which is preserved in the herbarium of
North Carolina State University under accession number 125273.
Hapantotype
A special case in Protistans where the type consists of two
or more specimens of “directly related individuals representing
distinct stages in the life cycle”; these are collectively treated as
a single entity, and lectotype cannot be designated from among
them.
Several other permutations and variations in terms using the
suffix “-type” have been used (e.g., allotype, cotype, topotype,
generitype, isoneotype, etc.), but these are not formally regulated
by the Code, and are usually obsolete and/or idiosyncratic.
Type species
Type species is a species within a genus with which the name
of a genus is associated. Each genus must have a designated
type species (the term “genotype” was once used for this, but
it has been abandoned because the word has been co-opted
for use in genetics, and is much better known in that context).
The description of a genus is usually based primarily on its type
species, modified and expanded by the features of other included
species. The generic name is permanently associated with the
name-bearing type of its type species. For example the type
species of Genus Aster is Aster amellus  (Fig 15) and genus Poa is
Poa pratensis (fig16)
Ideally, a type species best exemplifies the essential
characteristics of the genus to which it belongs, but this is subjective
and, ultimately, technically irrelevant, as it is not a requirement
of the Code. If the type species proves, upon closer examination,
to belong to a pre-existing genus (a common occurrence), then
all of the constituent species must be either moved into the pre-
existing genus, or disassociated from the original type species,
and given a new generic name; the old generic name passes into
synonymy and is abandoned, unless there is a pressing need to
make an exception
Type genus
 Consortium for Educational Communication

A type genus is that genus from which the name of a family

or subfamily is formed. As with type species, the type genus
is not necessarily the most representative, but is usually the
earliest described, largest or the best known genus. It is not
uncommon for the name of a family to be based upon the name
of a type genus that has passed into synonymy; the family name
does not need to be changed in such a situation. For example,
the family Urticaceae has Urtica as its type genus. When this
original Urticaceae family was split into a number of smaller
natural families, the name Urticaceae was retained for the group
containing the genus Urtica, since the two cannot be separated.
The other splitter groups with family rank got the names Moraceae,
Ulmaceae, and Cannabaceae, with the type genera Morus, Ulmus
and Cannabis, respectively.
It is important to mention here that there is a distinction
between nomenclatural types (also referred to as taxonomic
types), and “biological types.” The latter extends from a Goethe
concept of archetypes, hypothesized to be real plants bearing the
primordial characteristics of all of its successors. Not only does
science reject the idea of biological types, but the ICBN cannot
deal with them, for they would be taxonomic.
Uses of types
Type specimens act as a repository of information for the
correct identification and naming of organisms.
The process of typification is crucial to the science of
biological taxonomy. People’s ideas of how living things should be
grouped changes and shifts over time. How do we know that what
we call “Nelumbo nucifera” is the same thing, or approximately
the same thing, as what they will be calling “Nelumbo nucifera” in
200 years time? It is possible to check this because there would
be a particular nelumbium specimen preserved in a herbarium
somewhere, and everyone who uses that name – no matter what
else they may mean by it – will mean that particular specimen.
Some of the most precious holdings of major natural history
museums around the world are rarely, if ever, displayed to the
public. These are the museums’ collections of type specimens
which, by edict, serve as the last court of appeal in all questions
and disputes about species definition, membership, and names.
In a modern collection, type specimens are ordinarily flagged by
a color-coded system, housed in fireproof rooms, and consulted
only by specialists under the watchful eyes of curators.
 Consortium for Educational Communication

Zoological collections are maintained by universities and

museums. Ensuring that types are kept in good condition,
and made available for examination by taxonomists, are two
important functions of such collections.