two lectotypes question

Pape, Thomas TPape at SNM.KU.DK
Thu Jun 2 12:48:57 CDT 2005

> do I proceed?

Go for the evidence and rely on your judgements.

If the specimen examined by Schouteden (1907) does not match the original description "in several ways", this is in itself a valid argument that it is not part of the original material upon which the nominal taxon was proposed and described.

Art. 74.2 of the ICZN is very explicit on this: "If it is demonstrated that a specimen designated as a lectotype was not a syntype, it loses its status of lectotype."

Given that the specimen examined by Horvath (1915) is from the type locality and has a label with "foetidus det. Signoret", I would consider this as (one of) the original specimen(s). Granted, of course, that it matches the original description.

Thomas Pape

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] På vegne af Michael Wall
Sendt: 2. juni 2005 07:52
Emne: [TAXACOM] two lectotypes question


I have nomenclatural problem on which I would like advice on how to proceed.

I have a species (B. foetidus) described by Signoret and Montrouzier in 1861.  No type specimen is indicated and locality is "Ins Woodlark".
There is no indication in the whether the description is based on a single specimen or a series.

Now for the troublesome bit. ----  In 1907 Schouteden infers that a specimen now held in Roy. Inst. of Nat. Scinces in Belgium is the 'type'
of B. foetidus.  The Schouteden specimen has a 'type' label with no determiner given (I assume this is Schouteden because the label places it in a genus not used by Signoret and Montrouzier but to a genus which the species was subsequently moved).  Then, in 1915 Horvath redescribes the speices and comments on the 'type' which he looked at in the 'Musei Vindobonensis.'  The Horvath specimen in Vienna bears the label
"foetidus det. Signoret".    Both specimens have labels that say
"Woodlark" and no other data.

The major problem is that the Schouteden specimen is not B. foetidus as is generally conceived.  It doesn't match the original description in several ways.

Given the Signoret det label on the Vienna material and its matching with the orignal description I consider this to be the proper lectotype.

Schouteden has priority but all the available evidence indicates he was probably wrong. This isn't really the rediscovery of a former name-bearing type becuase Signoret and Montrouzier never designated the type specimen. do I proceed?   Thanks in advance.

Kind regards,

Michael A. Wall
Postdoctoral Fellow - American Museum Natural History Visiting Fellow - Australian Museum

Department of Entomology
6 College St.
Sydney NSW 2010

Phone: (+61 2) 9320 6476
Fax: (+61 2) 9320 6486

The Australian Museum.
Australia's first - and leading - natural sciences and anthropology museum. Visit

The views in this email are those of the user and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Museum. The information contained in this email message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential and is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this email or any attached files is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender. The Australian Museum does not guarantee the accuracy of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. As Internet communications are not secure, the Australian Museum does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list