Species Re-description

Margaret K. Thayer mthayer at FIELDMUSEUM.ORG
Wed Jul 4 13:00:46 CDT 2001

Yes, Murray Fletcher's "probably ..." statement is correct - see article
75.5 for specifics.

If the remaining parts of the holotype ARE adequate to allow interpretation
and application of the name (a taxonomic, not nomenclatural, question),
and/or there is no confusion regarding the identity of the species, then
there is no need or justification for thinking about a neotype.

Margaret Thayer

At 01:22 PM 4-07-2001 +1000, Murray Fletcher wrote:
>These remnants comprise the holotype. You cannot designate a paratype or
>syntype since these could only have been designated by the original
>author. You could designate a neotype but to do so you will need to
>demonstrate to the International Commission that the holotype is lost. As
>you have parts of the holotype remaining, you probably need to
>demonstrate to the Commission that these parts are totally incapable of
>representing the species in order to justify creation of a neotype.

Margaret K. Thayer      mthayer at fieldmuseum.org     http://www.fmnh.org
Assistant Curator  - Zoology,
Insects         or        http://www.fieldmuseum.org
Field Museum of Natural History
1400 South Lake Shore Drive
Chicago IL 60605-2496, USA
PHONE: 312-665-7741 (direct-dial)
FAX: 312-665-7754

More information about the Taxacom mailing list