[Taxacom] Paralectotype question

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Apr 20 16:11:05 CDT 2017

I am surprised that you would consider this issue without having seen the OD [Original Description]! Here it is: http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/42217896

It doesn't help though. Anyway, you need to consider whether the labels are original Loew labels or added subsequently by someone else.

If it was me, I would just state (assuming you have a publication in preparation) that the 4th specimen may also be part of the type series and therefore now a paralectotype. I don't see the need to make a definite decision based on less than conclusive evidence, do you?


On Fri, 21/4/17, Robert Louis Zuparko <rz at berkeley.edu> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Paralectotype question
 To: "Francisco Welter-Schultes" <fwelter at gwdg.de>
 Cc: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Friday, 21 April, 2017, 8:52 AM
 clarify: The species was described by Loew in 1859, but I
 have not seen the OD. A series of (at least) 4 specimens
 were in the MCZ, all sharing the same two labels: one saying
 "Loew coll." and the other a red label reading
 "TYPE 13228". Therefore I think it is safe to say
 they are all part of the same syntype series (granted this
 is an assumption, but I think it is a safe one). The 4th
 specimen was later removed. Afterwards, Orth made his
 lectotype designation of the remaining 3 specimens.
 Robert Zuparko
 Essig Museum of Entomology
 1101 Valley Life Sciences Building,
 University of California
 Berkeley, CA 94720-3112
 (510) 643-0804

More information about the Taxacom mailing list