Brian Fisher commented over 3 years ago: show raw@user60 Also a good time to standardize the format: I see two choices, treat it like a new caste description and use the format: Johnson, 2015: 98 (lectotype designation) or lead with the class of data: Lectotype designation: Rakotonirina et al., 2017: 218 preference?

@Fredrik Palmkron Also a good time to standardize the format: I see two choices, treat it like a new caste description and use the format:
Johnson, 2015: 98 (lectotype designation)
or lead with the class of data:
Lectotype designation: Rakotonirina et al., 2017: 218
preference?

Fredrik Palmkron commented over 3 years ago: show rawGood idea, I say "Lectotype designation: Rakotonirina et al., 2017: 218" is best. It's better for parsing/validation/rendering, and I think designations/fixations/selections of types is similar but different enough to be its own thing. Then there are also ["neotypes"](/taxon_history_items?per_page=100&q=neotype) which can follow the same format: "Neotype designation: ...".

Good idea, I say "Lectotype designation: Rakotonirina et al., 2017: 218" is best.

It's better for parsing/validation/rendering, and I think designations/fixations/selections of types is similar but different enough to be its own thing.

Then there are also "neotypes" which can follow the same format: "Neotype designation: ...".