[Taxacom] pdf request

Laurent Raty l.raty at skynet.be
Fri Oct 24 05:17:01 CDT 2014

Dear Fabio,

You can download Voss & Sweeney 1998, including Mangold 1998, here:


What you need is not a designation of the type locality, but a valid 
designation of a neotype--ie, an explicit published designation of one 
particular, individually identifiable, extant specimen, deposited in a 
specified collection, to act as the new unique name-bearing type for the 
nominal species. (This designation must meet all the conditions 
specified in Article 75 of the Code.) Once this neotype is validly 
designated, the type locality will be its locality of origin.

Mangold 1998 only wrote: "A neotype has been selected from the western 
Mediterranean Sea (Banyuls-sur-Mer, France), and the species is being 
redescribed (Hochberg and Mangold, MS)", which is only a statement of 
intent to designate this specimen as a neotype. This has absolutely no 
effect on the type locality of Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, and strongly 
suggests that, in 1998, no neotytpe had (yet) been designated.

Laurent -

On 10/24/2014 10:58 AM, Fabio Crocetta wrote:
> Dear Taxacomers,
> I'm trying to understand if a type locality has been formally stated for
> Octopus vulgaris. According to some authors, there is no type locality:
> e.g.: Guerra et al. 2010
> http://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/48679/1/fsq040%20O.%20Amsterdam.pdf
> whilst according to others
> e.g.: Soller et al.
> http://utweb.utampa.edu/hosted/faculty/srice/BIO224.Folder/Invert.Lit.PDF/81
> .mtDNA.in.Octopus.pdf
> it has been stated in two articles:
> 1 - Mangold and Hochberg 1991 - Defining the genus Octopus: redescription of
> Octopus vulgaris. Bull mar Sci 49: p 665
> 2 - Mangold 1997. Octopus vulgaris: review of the biology. In: Lang MA,
> Hochberg FG (eds) Proceedings of the Workshop on ``The Fishery and Market
> Potential of Octopus in California''. Smithonian Institution, Washington DC,
> pp 85-90
> Another article:
> Warnke et al.
> http://opac.geologie.ac.at/wwwopacx/wwwopac.ashx?command=getcontent
> <http://opac.geologie.ac.at/wwwopacx/wwwopac.ashx?command=getcontent&server=
> images&value=AB0057_401_A.pdf> &server=images&value=AB0057_401_A.pdf
> suggested that the type locality has been stated in Mangold & Hochberg,
> whilst brief descriptions are available in Mangold (1997 and 1998).
> 1 - Mangold & Hochberg 1991 (see up)
> 2 - Mangold (1997) (see up)
> 3 - MANGOLD, K., 1998: The Octopodinae from the eastern Atlantic Ocean and
> the Mediterranean Sea. - In: N.A. VOSS, M. VECCHIONE, R.B. TOLL & M.J.
> SWEENEY (eds.): Systematics and Biogeography of Cephalopods. Smiths. Contr.
> Zool., 586 (2), 521-528.
> The designation of a type locality in Mangold & Hochberg (1991) has been
> also accepted by the following article (very recent):
> De Luca et al., 2014. An integration of historical records and genetic data
> to the assessment of global distribution and population structure in Octopus
> vulgaris. Front. Ecol. Evol., 02 September 2014 | doi:
> 10.3389/fevo.2014.00055.
> (free download from:
> http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fevo.2014.00055/abstract)
> I have found Mangold & Hochberg (1991: see attachment) and it is an abstract
> only. It seems to me that the statements from 1991 are not valid (they
> declare that a full article should follow, but it was never published). Did
> you agree on that? If so, it seems to me that Angel Guerra (the first
> article) is right and that the type locality has never been established.
> Another question: someone can provide to me pdfs of Mangold (1997) and
> Mangold (1998) to check if Mangold stated there the formal designation of a
> type locality?
> Thanks a lot for your kindness
> Fabio Crocetta

More information about the Taxacom mailing list