subsequent designation of paratypes

christian thompson cthompson at SEL.BARC.USDA.GOV
Fri Apr 5 09:35:59 CST 2002

And WHO cares?

Types are nomenclatural anchors. The ICZN clearly states this and regulates
only Holotype, Lectotype, Neotype and Syntypes (and yes, those
Hapantotypes). Allotypes and Paratypes have nothing to do with nomenclature
and are nothing more than glorified vouchers. So, why worry whether they are
"paratypes" or not, the important issue is that they are VOUCHERs identified
by the original author. Be sure to label them as such.


F. Christian Thompson
Systematic Entomology Lab., ARS, USDA
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, D. C. 20560-0169
(202) 382-1800 voice
(202) 786-9422 FAX
cthompso at [NB: no terminal "n"]
visit our Diptera site at

>>> Ron Gatrelle <gatrelle at TILS-TTR.ORG> 04/05 9:10 AM >>>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Pape" <thomas.pape at NRM.SE>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: subsequent designation of paratypes

> > ...given the definitions in the ICZN, I would think
> > these would be paratypes, despite the fact they were not mentioned in
> > first paper where the species was named.
>         Am I correct? - Barry
> No.
> Paratypes are specimens of a type series other than the holotype. The
> series contains those specimens explicitly included by the author -
> or by bibliographic reference. If the author mentions only a holotype
> will be no paratypes.
> Thomas Pape
> Naturhistoriska riksmuseet

A second No - and ditto.

Ron Gatrelle
TILS president
Charleston, SC - USA

More information about the Taxacom mailing list