[Nhcoll-l] Is a neotype designation still valid if the author mentions the lot has more than one specimen?

[Shoobs, Nate]

This one is for all the ICZN buffs out there:

I'm a bit rusty. I'm checking the type status of a specific lot and an author (prior to 1961) refers to a multi-specimen lot by catalog number collectively as "neotypes" for a species with a lost syntype series. The author illustrates an individual specimen in the publication as well, but does not unambiguously state that one specimen from the cited museum lot in particular is the neotype.

Do neotype designations need to be individual and unambiguous in an original publication to be valid?
My gut says yes due to the way ICZN Art. 75.7<https://code.iczn.org/types-in-the-species-group/article-75-neotypes/#art-75-7> is worded, but I wanted to double check.


--

[The Ohio State University]
Nathaniel F. Shoobs
Curator of Mollusks
College of Arts & Sciences Dept. of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology
Museum of Biological Diversity, 1315 Kinnear Rd, Columbus, OH 43212
614-688-1342 (Office)
mbd.osu.edu/collections/invertebrates<https://mbd.osu.edu/collections/invertebrates>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/nhcoll-l/attachments/20260216/82abfe6d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001[28].png
Type: image/png
Size: 3607 bytes
Desc: image001[28].png
URL: <http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/nhcoll-l/attachments/20260216/82abfe6d/attachment.png>