(200) Proposal to amend the definition of the word "duplicate"in the footnote to Article 8.3

Under the present wording of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018; see footnote 1 to Art. 8.3, and Glossary), a duplicate is defined as (any?) “part of a single gathering of a single species or infraspecific taxon”. That definition, if interpreted verbatim, may have important implications for nomenclature. For example, a separately preserved special pollen/spore sample or preparation such as a slide or other pollen/spore sample deposited in a pollen reference collection (see, e.g., https://globalpollenproject.org/Reference; Bezusko & Tsymbalyuk in Shiyan, Index Herbariorum Ucrainicum: 138–141. 2011), if taken from a type specimen such as a holotype, lectotype or neotype, may or even should be considered as an isotype, isolectotype or isoneotype, respectively. If the type specimen(s) is/are lost or destroyed, such a microscopic special preparation could be considered as an original specimen eligible for typification. However, it is evident that such special samples of microscopic or just very small parts (e.g. pollen/spore samples or preparations, small fragments or parts taken for DNA extraction, anatomical, micromorphological or biochemical studies, etc.) separated from a non-microscopic specimen, even if such samples or parts have a label duplicated from the label of that specimen, serve specific purposes and in most cases cannot represent all or at least the main diagnostic morphological characters of that specimen. Because of that, we propose the following amendment to the footnote in Art. 8.3. “1 Here and elsewhere in this Code, the word “duplicate” is given its usual meaning in curatorial practice. A duplicate is part of a single gathering of a single species or infraspecific taxon. However, separately preserved samples or preparations of pollen, spores, and/or other microscopic or small parts taken from herbarium or other specimens of non-microscopic organisms for specific purposes (e.g. for DNA extraction, anatomical, micromorphological, or biochemical studies) are not considered duplicates.” No changes to the Glossary are needed because the definition of the word “duplicate” in the Glossary refers to the footnote to Art. 8.3. The proposed amendment does not affect the nomenclatural interpretation of parts taken from specimens of microscopic organisms (e.g. duplicates of samples of microscopic algae preserved in jars, etc.). We are grateful to Nicholas J. Turland (Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany) and John H. Wiersema (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) for their comments and edits.