You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


CHAPTER II. Status, typification, and priority of names

SECTION 2. Typification

Article 9

A holotype of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is the one specimen or illustration (but see Art. 40.4) used by the author, or designated by the author as the nomenclatural type. As long as the holotype is extant, it fixes the application of the name concerned (but see Art. 9.15).

Any designation made by the original author, if definitely expressed at the time of the original publication of the name of the taxon, is final (but see Art. 9.11 and 9.15). If the author used only one element, it must be accepted as the holotype. If a name of a new taxon is validly published solely by reference to a previously published description or diagnosis, the same considerations apply to material used by the author of that description or diagnosis (see Art. 7.7; but see Art. 7.8).

When Tuckerman established Opegrapha oulocheila Tuck. (1866) he referred to “the single specimen, from Schweinitz’s herbarium (Herb. Acad. Sci. Philad.) before me”. Even though the term “type” or its equivalent was not used in the protologue, that specimen (PH) is the holotype.

The name Phoebe calcarea S. K. Lee & F. N. Wei (1983) was validly published with the holotype designation “Du’an Expedition 4-10-004, IBK”, but no specimen with this collection number exists at IBK. However, a specimen at IBK annotated with this name, “sp. nov.”, “Typus”, and matching all other details of the protologue bears the collection number “Duan Exped. 4-10-243”. Therefore the original type citation is obviously erroneous and is to be corrected.

A lectotype is a specimen or illustration designated from the original material as the nomenclatural type, in conformity with Art. 9.11 and 9.12, if no holotype was indicated at the time of publication, or if the holotype is missing, or if a type is found to belong to more than one taxon (see also Art. 9.14). For sanctioned names, a lectotype may be selected from among elements associated with either or both the protologue and the sanctioning treatment (Art. 9.10).

For the purposes of this Code, original material comprises the following elements: (a) those specimens and illustrations (both unpublished and published either prior to or together with the protologue) upon which it can be shown that the description or diagnosis validating the name was based; (b) the holotype and those specimens which, even if not seen by the author of the description or diagnosis validating the name, were indicated as types (syntypes or paratypes) of the name at its valid publication; and (c) the isotypes or isosyntypes of the name irrespective of whether such specimens were seen by either the author of the validating description or diagnosis or the author of the name (but see Art. 7.7, 7.8, and 9.10).

For names falling under Art. 7.8, only elements from the context of the protologue itself are considered as original material.

For names falling under Art. 7.7, only elements from the context of the validating description are considered as original material, unless the validating author has definitely designated a different type.

For names falling under Art. 9.10, elements from the context of the protologue are original material and those from the context of the sanctioning work are considered as equivalent to original material.

An isotype is any duplicate of the holotype; it is always a specimen.

A syntype is any specimen cited in the protologue when there is no holotype, or any one of two or more specimens simultaneously designated in the protologue as types (see also Art. 40 Note 1). Reference to an entire gathering, or a part thereof, is considered citation of the included specimens.

In the protologue of Laurentia frontidentata E. Wimm. (see Art. 40 Ex. 2) a single gathering in two herbaria was designated as the type. There must exist, therefore, at least two specimens and these are syntypes.

In the protologue of Anemone alpina L. (1753), two specimens are cited under the (unnamed) varieties β and γ, as “Burs. IX: 80” and “Burs. IX: 81”. These specimens, which are extant in the Burser Herbarium (UPS), are syntypes of A. alpina.

A paratype is any specimen cited in the protologue that is neither the holotype nor an isotype, nor one of the syntypes if in the protologue two or more specimens were simultaneously designated as types.

The holotype of the name Rheedia kappleri Eyma (1932), which applies to a polygamous species, is a male specimen, Kappler 593a (U). The author designated a hermaphroditic specimen, Forestry Service of Surinam B. W. 1618 (U), as a paratype.

In most cases in which no holotype was designated there will also be no paratypes, since all the cited specimens will be syntypes. However, when an author designated two or more specimens as types (Art. 9.5), any remaining cited specimens are paratypes and not syntypes.

In the protologue of Eurya hebeclados Y. Ling (1951) the author simultaneously designated two specimens as types, Y. Ling 5014 as “typus, ♂” and Y. Y. Tung 315 as “typus, ♀”, which are therefore syntypes. Ling also cited the specimen Y. Ling 5366 but without designating it as a type; it is therefore a paratype.

A neotype is a specimen or illustration selected to serve as nomenclatural type if no original material is extant, or as long as it is missing (see also Art. 9.16).

An epitype is a specimen or illustration selected to serve as an interpretative type when the holotype, lectotype, or previously designated neotype, or all original material associated with a validly published name, is demonstrably ambiguous and cannot be critically identified for purposes of the precise application of the name to a taxon. Designation of an epitype is not effected unless the holotype, lectotype, or neotype that the epitype supports is explicitly cited (see Art. 9.20).

The holotype of the name Vitellaria paradoxa C. F. Gaertn. (1807) is a seed of unknown provenance (P). It shows the characters of the species but cannot be assigned to either of its two currently recognized subspecies, which differ in characters of foliage and inflorescence. Hall & Hindle (in Taxon 44: 410. 1995) designated the type of Bassia parkii G. Don (1838), Park (BM), as the epitype of V. paradoxa. Bassia parkii thus becomes a synonym of V. paradoxa subsp. paradoxa, and the second subspecies retains the name V. paradoxa subsp. nilotica (Kotschy) A. N. Henry & al. (1983).

The lectotype of Lichen saxatilis L. (1753), designated by Galloway & Elix (in New Zealand J. Bot. 21: 405. 1983), is a specimen from Sweden: Herb. Linnaeus No. 1273.62, second individual from bottom (LINN). No molecular sequence data could be obtained from the lectotype in order to ascertain whether it agrees with current usage of the name Parmelia saxatilis (L.) Ach. (1803) or is referable to the morphologically indistinguishable P. serrana A. Crespo & al. (2004). Therefore, Molina & al. (in Lichenologist 36: 47. 2004) designated an epitype, supporting that lectotype: a Swedish specimen of P. saxatilis, collected in 1998 (MAF 6882), for which sequence data were available.

The use of a term defined in the Code (Art. 9.1–2 and 9.4–8) as denoting a type, in a sense other than that in which it is so defined, is treated as an error to be corrected (for example, the use of the term lectotype to denote what is in fact a neotype).

Borssum Waalkes (in Blumea 14: 198. 1966) cited Herb. Linnaeus No. 866.7 (LINN) as the holotype of Sida retusa L. (1763). However, illustrations in Plukenet (Phytographia: t. 9, fig. 2. 1691) and Rumphius (Herb. Amboin. 6: t. 19. 1750) were cited by Linnaeus in the protologue. Therefore the original material of S. retusa comprises three elements (Art. 9.3), and Borssum Waalkes’s use of holotype is an error to be corrected to lectotype.

A misused term may be corrected only if the requirements of Art. 7.10 (for correction to lectotype, neotype, and epitype) are met and Art. 40.6 (for correction to holotype) does not apply.

The type of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon adopted in one of the works specified in Art. 13.1(d), and thereby sanctioned (Art. 15), may be selected from among the elements associated with the name in the protologue and/or the sanctioning treatment.

If no holotype was indicated by the author of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon, or when the holotype or previously designated lectotype has been lost or destroyed, or when the material designated as type is found to belong to more than one taxon, a lectotype or, if permissible (Art. 9.7), a neotype as a substitute for it may be designated.

In lectotype designation, an isotype must be chosen if such exists, or otherwise a syntype if such exists. If no isotype, syntype or isosyntype (duplicate of syntype) is extant, the lectotype must be chosen from among the paratypes if such exist. If no cited specimens exist, the lectotype must be chosen from among the uncited specimens and cited and uncited illustrations that comprise the remaining original material, if such exist.

If no original material is extant or as long as it is missing, a neotype may be selected. A lectotype always takes precedence over a neotype, except as provided by Art. 9.16.

When a type (herbarium sheet or equivalent preparation) contains parts belonging to more than one taxon (see Art. 9.11), the name must remain attached to the part (specimen as defined in Art. 8.2) that corresponds most nearly with the original description or diagnosis.

The type of the name Tillandsia bryoides Griseb. ex Baker (1878) is Lorentz 128 (BM); this specimen, however, proved to be mixed. Smith (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 70: 192. 1935) acted in accordance with Art. 9.14 in designating one part of Lorentz’s specimen as the lectotype.

The holotype (or lectotype) of a name of a fossil-species or infraspecific fossil-taxon (Art. 8.5) is the specimen (or one of the specimens) on which the validating illustrations (Art. 43.2) are based. When, prior to 1 January 2001 (see Art. 43.3), in the protologue of a name of a new fossil-taxon of the rank of species or below, a type specimen is indicated (Art. 40.1) but not identified among the validating illustrations, a lectotype must be designated from among the specimens illustrated in the protologue. This choice is superseded if it can be demonstrated that the original type specimen corresponds to another validating illustration.

When a holotype or a previously designated lectotype has been lost or destroyed and it can be shown that all the other original material differs taxonomically from the lost or destroyed type, a neotype may be selected to preserve the usage established by the previous typification (see also Art. 9.18).

A designation of a lectotype or neotype that later is found to refer to a single gathering but to more than one specimen must nevertheless be accepted (subject to Art. 9.19), but may be further narrowed to a single one of these specimens by way of a subsequent lectotypification or neotypification.

Erigeron plantagineus Greene (1898) was described from material collected by R. M. Austin in California. Cronquist (in Brittonia 6: 173. 1947) wrote “Type: Austin s.n., Modoc County, California (ND)”, thereby designating the Austin material in ND as the [first-step] lectotype. Strother & Ferlatte (in Madroño 35: 85. 1988), noting that there were two specimens of this gathering at ND, designated one of them (ND-G No. 057228) as the [second-step] lectotype. In subsequent references, both lectotypification steps may be cited in sequence.

A neotype selected under Art. 9.16 may be superseded if it can be shown to differ taxonomically from the holotype or lectotype that it replaced.

The author who first designates (Art. 7.9 and 7.10) a lectotype or a neotype in conformity with Art. 9.11–13 must be followed, but that choice is superseded if (a) the holotype or, in the case of a neotype, any of the original material is rediscovered; the choice may also be superseded if one can show that (b) it is in serious conflict with the protologue and another element is available that is not in conflict with the protologue, or that (c) it is contrary to Art. 9.14.

Baumann & al. (in J. Eur. Orch. 34: 176. 2006) designated an illustration cited in the protologue of Gymnadenia rubra Wettst. (1889) as “lectotype”. Because Wettstein also cited syntypes, which should have taken precedence, this designation was not in conformity with Art. 9.12 and must not be followed. The name was correctly lectotypified, designating one of the syntypes, by Baumann & Lorenz (in Taxon 60: 1775. 2011).

The author who first designates (Art. 7.9 and 7.10) an epitype must be followed; a different epitype may be designated only if the original epitype is lost or destroyed. A lectotype or neotype supported by an epitype may be superseded in accordance with Art. 9.19, or in the case of a neotype with Art. 9.18. If it can be shown that an epitype and the type it supports differ taxonomically and that neither Art. 9.18 nor 9.19 applies, the name may be proposed for conservation with a conserved type (Art. 14.9; see also Art. 57).

An epitype supports only the type to which it is linked by the typifying author. If the supported type is superseded, the epitype has no standing with respect to the replacement type.

Designation of an epitype is not effected unless the herbarium or institution in which the epitype is conserved is specified or, if the epitype is a published illustration, a full and direct bibliographic reference (Art. 41.5) to it is provided.

On or after 1 January 1990, lectotypification or neotypification of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon by a specimen or unpublished illustration is not effected unless the herbarium or institution in which the type is conserved is specified.

On or after 1 January 2001, lectotypification or neotypification of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is not effected unless indicated by use of the term “lectotypus” or “neotypus”, its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language (see also Art. 7.10 and 9.9).

Recommendation 9A

Typification of names for which no holotype was designated should only be carried out with an understanding of the author’s method of working; in particular it should be realized that some of the material used by the author in describing the taxon may not be in the author’s herbarium or may not even have survived, and conversely, that not all the material surviving in the author’s herbarium was necessarily used in describing the taxon.

Designation of a lectotype should be undertaken only in the light of an understanding of the group concerned. In choosing a lectotype, all aspects of the protologue should be considered as a basic guide. Mechanical methods, such as the automatic selection of the first element cited or of a specimen collected by the person after whom a species is named, should be avoided as unscientific and leading to possible future confusion and further changes.

In choosing a lectotype, any indication of intent by the author of a name should be given preference unless such indication is contrary to the protologue. Such indications are manuscript notes, annotations on herbarium sheets, recognizable figures, and epithets such as typicus,genuinus, etc.

When two or more heterogeneous elements were included in or cited with the original description or diagnosis, the lectotype should be so selected as to preserve current usage. In particular, if another author has already segregated one or more elements as other taxa, one of the remaining elements should be designated as the lectotype provided that this element is not in conflict with the original description or diagnosis (see Art. 9.19).

Recommendation 9B

In selecting a neotype, particular care and critical knowledge should be exercised because the reviewer usually has no guide except personal judgement as to what best fits the protologue; if this selection proves to be faulty it may result in further change.

Recommendation 9C

Duplicate specimens of a lectotype, neotype, and epitype should be referred to as isolectotypes, isoneotypes, and isoepitypes, respectively.

Recommendation 9D

Specification of the institution of deposition (see Art. 40 Note 4) should be followed by any available number permanently and unambiguously identifying the lectotype, neotype, or epitype specimen (see also Rec. 40A.3).