<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/2/23 8:39 AM, Shoobs, Nate wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DM5PR0102MB3397C8E4E247CF6379DB1FD5DC0BA@DM5PR0102MB3397.prod.exchangelabs.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style>@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}</style>
<div class="WordSection1"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">The author, in the description,
says something like this: “Holotype: OSUM 1234, 10
specimens. Paratype: OSUM 4567, 1 specimen.”.
<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Speaking as an ICZN Commissioner, this right here is the core
issue.</p>
<p>After 1999, a holotype designation must be of an individual
specimen. The statement above does not designate a single
specimen, it designates a "lot" containing multiple specimens.
Prior to 2000, this would have devolved to a "by default"
situation and the specimens in that lot would have been considered
syntypes.</p>
<p>I personally don't think the name of this new taxon is available
at all, as it has no validly-designated type specimen, because
your ample evidence (that what happened here is the accidental
switching of the words "holotype" and "paratypes" in the final
published version) is not allowable for names after 1999. The
problem is unusual enough that I will pass it by the other
Commissioners to see what they think, but I doubt it is
salvageable.</p>
<p>Peace,<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html">https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html</a>
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82</pre>
</body>
</html>