subsequent designation of paratypes

Barry M. OConnor bmoc at UMICH.EDU
Fri Apr 5 09:55:17 CST 2002


Regarding paratypes mentioned in a paper subsequent to the paper in which
the species name was first proposed (before 2000)...

At 3:28 PM +0200 4/5/02, Thomas Pape wrote:

No.
Paratypes are specimens of a type series other than the holotype. The type
series contains those specimens explicitly included by the author - directly
or by bibliographic reference. If the author mentions only a holotype there
will be no paratypes.

At 9:10 AM -0500 4/5/02, Ron Gatrelle wrote:

>A second No - and ditto.

At 9:35 AM -0500 4/5/02, christian thompson wrote:
>And WHO cares?...

But the ICZN defines "type series" as "the series of specimens, defined in
articles 72.4 and 73.2, on which the original author bases a new nominal
species-group taxon."  Article 72.4.1.1 states that before 2000, any
evidence, published or not, may be taken into account to determine what
specimens constitute the type series.  Since the original author refers to
paratypes in a later work, I take this to mean those specimens were part of
the original type-series.
        As Chris pointed out, it doesn't really matter, since only the
holotype has any bearing on nomenclature.  However, should the holotype be
lost or prove to be the wrong sex for identification, the type-series
concept in the ICZN is a useful one, and I think that's why "paratype" is
still defined in the code.
        - Barry



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So many mites, so little time!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry M. OConnor
Professor & Curator             phone: (734) 763-4354
Museum of Zoology               FAX: (734) 763-4080
University of Michigan          e-mail: bmoc at umich.edu
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079  USA




More information about the Taxacom mailing list