From Plant Press, Vol. 22, No. 3, July 2019.
In the January 2019 issue of The Plant Press (Vol. 22, No. 1), Julia Beros reported on an interesting mystery in the article, “The search for Santessonia continues.” Harold Robinson told Beros a story about Mason Hale’s discovery of the highly unusual lichen, Santessonia namibensis, and when Robinson and Beros went to examine the type specimen, they found the specimen missing. According to the original 1978 publication describing the species, two isotypes were sent to Lund and Uppsala, and the holotype was sent to the Smithsonian.
Almost four months after the search began, motivation dwindling, a message of hope appeared in Robinson and John Boggan email inboxes. The only hint revealed in the subject line: “Santessonia namibensis type.”
Patrik Frödén, an assistant curator at Lund University in Sweden, read about the missing type and took it as a call to action. After checking the database and the herbarium he found no inkling of the isotype that they were supposedly housing. He then checked with the herbarium at Uppsala, and they replied: no isotype to be found. After going through the accession catalogue Frödén noted as well that between 1977-1984 (in the timeline of the publication of the genus) there does not appear to be any record of African material sent from the Smithsonian.
It is possible that the isotypes were never distributed, and after Hale’s death, were not well accounted for and could have been lost to disorganization. The new genus was described by both Hale and Gernot Vobis in Botaniska Notiser v.131, so it is also possible that the missing specimen is associated with Vobis’ name. There are multitudes of slight errors or misplacements or mislabeling that could have led the isotypes astray.
It is, however, reassuring to know that when a question is put forth, our international botanical community will respond! Though as the plot thickens, the search quiets again….
“Someday. Somebody. Somewhere,” Robinson sighs, “the type will show up.”
Comments