[Taxacom] holotype designation

Francisco Welter-Schultes fwelter at gwdg.de
Wed Mar 27 18:09:23 CDT 2019


Relevant are Art. 74.5 and 74.6. For the type series, see Art. 72.4.1.

Just saying "type" alone is not necessarily enough for meeting the 
conditions to qualify for a holotype designation. If there is external 
evidence that the author had more specimens at his or her disposal, this 
type would be a syntype.
I did not really understand the meaning of "unique" in this context. 
Maybe a little more information could help.

Francisco


-----
Francisco Welter-Schultes

Am 27.03.2019 um 23:46 schrieb John Grehan:
> I could probably figure this out from the rules of nomenclature, but
> perhaps someone will know off the cuff as I would like to be sure and have
> the info quickly. If someone in 1958 states "type, a male, unique...…" is
> that sufficient for the specimen to be referred to as a holotype since it
> is clear that the type is represented by a single specimen?
> 
> Thanks. John Grehan
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> 
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
> 


More information about the Taxacom mailing list