[Taxacom] Paralectotype question

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Apr 20 14:31:09 CDT 2017

Ah yes (too early in the morning here for me to think straight!) However, the issue is now one of whether the original author of the species saw the 4th specimen (and considered it to be the same species at the time of original description). Robert says that it has the "same labels", but presumably that just means the same collecting data. There is insufficient information in Robert's post to decide the issue. In other words, is the 4th specimen a syntype? If you think so, then it is indeed a paralectotype, but the evidence may be less than certain.

Stephen (now fully awake!)

On Fri, 21/4/17, Adam Cotton <adamcot at cscoms.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Paralectotype question
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Friday, 21 April, 2017, 7:13 AM
 ----- 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
 > 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 irrelevant.
 > Stephen
 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: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting
 Ambiguity for 30 Years, 1987-2017.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list