[Nhcoll-l] Curating specimens with uncertain type status?

[Douglas Yanega]

On 8/3/23 8:45 AM, Dirk Neumann wrote:
> Thanks for this valuable update, Doug!
>
> Quick question: if the holotype can be identified from the figure and 
> if the designation of this specimens as "the holotype" is unambiguous 
> from the figure legend, wouldn't it be straight forward if a first 
> reviser (i.e. Nate) would confirm that the depicted holotype as been 
> moved to lot OSUM 4567 and is been treated as holotype, and the 
> paratype specimen previously stored in OSUM 4567 as been assigned to a 
> new lot, OSUM 8910 ?
>
> Stability of the Code and scientific names is as important as a clear 
> reference and assignation of the holotype. This can be part of a type 
> catalogue or just a brief note specifically to this species/ that case 
> what problems have been observed and how they have been treated.
>
Very briefly: my understanding is that the figured specimen cannot be 
unambiguously recognized. In essence, the holotype is lost. The name is 
still available, even so.

If questions arose about the *validity* of the taxon (i.e., whether it 
was a synonym of another species), then - and pretty much ONLY then - a 
neotype would be required. There are a very large number of taxa that 
presently do not have holotypes, for various reasons, and the Code only 
allows neotypes to be designated when absolutely necessary (see Article 
75.2).

Peace,

-- 
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)
              https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/nhcoll-l/attachments/20230803/42772495/attachment.html>