subsequent designation of paratypes

[Barry M. OConnor]

In zoology, can a paratype be designated in a paper subsequent to the one
in which a species is described?  An author had the habit of publishing
short diagnoses of new species, mentioning only the holotype.  In
subsequent revisions, more complete descriptions were provided and many
specimens were listed as paratypes, many with collection data different
from those of the holotype.  In the absence of any information to the
contrary, I presume these were actually examined by the author when writing
the orignal diagnosis, so given the definitions in the ICZN, I would think
these would be paratypes, despite the fact they were not mentioned in the
first paper where the species was named.
        Am I correct? - Barry

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So many mites, so little time!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry M. OConnor
Professor & Curator             phone: (734) 763-4354
Museum of Zoology               FAX: (734) 763-4080
University of Michigan          e-mail: bmoc at umich.edu
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079  USA