[Taxacom] Paralectotype question
fwelter at gwdg.de
Thu Apr 20 14:21:03 CDT 2017
I agree entirely with Adam. During the act of lectotype designation it
is not required that the author who designates the lectotype saw or even
knew all the other syntypes. Paralectotyes are automatically those
syntypes which were not designated as lectotype (Art. 74.1.3).
Am 20.04.2017 um 21:13 schrieb Adam Cotton:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Thorpe"
> <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> To: <rz at berkeley.edu>; <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; "Adam Cotton"
> <adamcot at cscoms.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 2:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Paralectotype question
>> Adam's reply seems a little confusing to me. Robert specifically
>> stated that Orth never saw the fourth specimen, so it cannot be a
>> paralectotype. The fact that it is from the same collecting event is
> Orth was not the author of the taxon, he subsequently designated a
> lectotype. Whether or not he saw the fourth specimen is irrelevant to
> its status as a syntype, and thus as a paralectotype after lectotype
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years, 1987-2017.
More information about the Taxacom