[Taxacom] New monkey from Brazil

Laurent Raty l.raty at skynet.be
Wed May 17 20:05:52 CDT 2006


> Are we reading the same Code?  Article 73.1.4 does not "prevent" a
> photograph (illustration) from representing a holotype, but it explicitly
> "permits" it.

I wrote that it prevents a photographs from *being* (not representing) a
holotype - it does, because it states explicitly that, in the case of a
description referring to an illustration, the holotype is the represented
specimen (not the illustration). Retaining the illustration cannot be
assimilated to retaining the holotype; you cannot deposit the illustration
in a collection and pretend you have deposited a type specimen.
(You could do this with hairs, skin, or a blood sample.)

> I think the problem may be that "extant" is misunderstood.
> When applied to a specimen it means "still in existence," not "having
> living representatives" which is the meaning when applied to a taxon.
> Article 16.4.2 expressly states that "where the holotype or syntypes are
> extant specimens....."  Note that the phrase does not stop with "extant"
> but specifically refers to "extant specimens."  The Glossary has two
> definitions for extant.

I think I understand "extant", but I don't understand how this can affect
the current issue.
The phrase does not stop with "extant specimens" either - it goes on :
"where the holotype or syntypes are extant specimens, by a statement of
intent that they will be (or are) deposited in a collection and a statement
indicating the name and location of that collection."
Do you mean the holotype of Cebus queirozi could have ceased to fit the
definition of "an extant specimen" because it had been released before the
description was published, so this could have freed the author from
complying to the end of the phrase?
(NB - "specimen" is also defined in the Glossary.)

Laurent -

More information about the Taxacom mailing list