A Question

Andrey Sharkov Sharkov.1 at OSU.EDU
Thu May 29 11:51:51 CDT 1997

Formally there is nothing "illegal" (according to the ICZN) in designating a
female holotype, providing a female description, and not including any
illustrations. The Recommendation 17 in the Appendix E is only a general
recommendation, and not complying with it does not make the name invalid.
Besides, it does not say that the holotype (or the specimen of the same sex)
should be illustrated. Illistrating a paratype male does not contradict with any
provisions of the Code. However, of course, it would be advisable to include
illustrations of female and a male diagnosis in the taxon description. But
again, formally there is nothing wrong in the way it is done in the paper.

As to the second part of your question, there can be other situations when a
published illustration of an undescribed taxon may exist. For example, one
can publish an illustration of a misidentified species (under an existing
name), which eventually can be found to be a new species. Or, one can
publish an illustration of an unidentified species which can be known to be
new or found to be new later. In the Annotated Keys to the Genera of
Nearctic Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera) published last month (NRC Research
Press, 1997) on page 309 there is an illustration of an undescribed new
species of Holcencyrtus (Encyrtidae). This illustration can be referenced
when the species will be described.

Andrey Sharkov

-------On  Wed, 28 May 1997 11:55:18 -0600 Robin Leech wrote:
>As an associate editor of The Canadian Entomologist, I recently received
>a manuscript wherein a female beetle is designated as the holotype, and a
>diagnosis is given of the holotype, but drawings are provided for one of
>the paratypes, a male.
>I have checked locally with two taxonomists, both of whom feel it is
>unusual, and that the author(s) should be asked about this.
>Does anyone out there have any comments on this sort of thing?  The ICZN,
>in Recommendation 17, states merely "The description of a new taxon of
>the species-group should be accompanied by a satisfactory illustration or
>by a bibliographic reference to such an illustration."  I am presuming
>that "...a bibliographic reference to such an illustration." could only
>come from a situation such as "Xys yus in part", where drawings included
>what we now know to be more than one species.  Thus, drawings 1-3 are of
>species Xys yus, and 4-6 are of Xys somethingelseus.
>Otherwise, how could there be existing, published drawings of the new
>species being described?
>Robin Leech
Andrey Sharkov
Associate Curator                     Phone: (614) 292-2730
Department of Entomology        FAX: (614) 292-7774
Museum of Biodiversity             INTERNET:  Sharkov.1 at osu.edu
The Ohio State University
1315 Kinnear Rd.
Columbus, OH 43212

More information about the Taxacom mailing list