Georgia L. Hoffman

Jiří Kvaček on 2021-02-23 15:52:16

Dear Doctor Hoffman,
thank you very much for using PFNR database.

Concerning your comments:
(1) We linked basionym “Majanthemophyllum grandifolium” with the new combination “Orontiophyllum grandifolium”.
If you would like to make such a change by yourself, the procedure is as followed:
(a) On the page for Orontiophyllum grandifolium you click on “Edit name”, it is just below the scientific name. The register sheet will then reopen.
(b) Under the lines for scientific name and rank there is possibility to mark “New combination or status”, subsequently the line for basionym will appear.
(c) When the wanted basionym is not yet confirmed by administrators, it will not appear when you star to wit its name directly to the respective line. It is necessary to click on icon “select from list” (the small square with lines beside the line) and find it there.

(2) Type record
Type record is added on the basionym page.
If possible, we want to have databased whole history of type specimens. Usually in the old names based on more than one specimen, none of them was designated as type. In such a case, the first added recorded for type specimen should be “syntypes”. So, when you open “type page” you will choose “syntypes”. If the number of syntypes is cited in the publication (or you know them from another source), you can give all of them in the line for “Specimen number” or you can give them in “note window”. The same is true for repository or figures – see e.g. syntypes record for Boweria schatzlarensis in PFNR. But it is often that only one specimen is figured but from the protologue is clear that the authors assigned more specimens to his new species. In such a case, it is possible to write such information in note.

IMPORTANT: Not only in type section but in all other cases (stratigraphy, type locality etc.). If you add some information, which are not in the publication of description (e.g. new inventory numbers, updated stratigraphy, modern name of locality etc.) it is necessary to add the cite the source (publication or, e.g., personal information from curator etc.). Such updated information is very important and welcome but the user must see which information is from which source.

Sometimes, only lectotype is registered as syntypes registrations is rather formal act, when lectotype already designated.

When syntypes are recorded, you can click (on the taxon page) on “Add type” (one of choices just under the taxon name). After that you can add “lectotype”.

On the type page, there is possible to mark “Taxon is figured in previously published reference”. But this is used only in the case when the type is not figured in the publication of description or lectotype designation.

For example, Kvaček (2000) designated a lectotype for Araucaria bohemica Velen. and figured it in this paper. In the section for type record there is cited a figure from Kvaček (2000) and the figure of this specimen from previous Velenovský’s paper is mentioned only in the note.

On the contrary, when van Konijnenburg-van Cittert et al. (2018) published new combination for Asterocarpus heterophyllus Sternb. ex Göpp., they designated lectopyte but only cited its figure in Sternberg (1838). In such a case, “Taxon is figured in previously published reference” is marked and the reference od previously figured specimen is added.


Are you satisfied with these explanations or are there still other problems? We are sorry that the database is not so user friendly as we would like to have it. But we are trying to find some compromise between simplicity and accuracy.

Thank you very much once more for using PFNR database.