inappropriate cotype/paratype designation?

[christian thompson]

Yes, you got it right.

Obviously any specimen which does not match the label data given for the
TYPE can not consider the TYPE.

If the original author did not label a specimen as the TYPE, then all the
specimen now found that have data which agrees with what was published and
were likely to have been before the author at the time of the description
may be considered to be SYNTYPES if more than one. If only one is now found,
it is a reasonable assumption to consider the unique as the TYPE. If more
than one are found, then all should be considered SYNTYPES and the a
subsequent worker may designate a LECTOTYPE from those specimens.  After
such a designation, all the other syntypes are paralectotypes.  The other
specimens which match the data given in the original description for other
material may be called "paratypes" (paratypes being defined as those
specimens which were considered by the author as part of the "type series"
but not the holotype or in rare cases like this, not "syntypes")

Obviously, with this sloppy author who did not clearly identify the status
of any specimen beyond calling one a "Type," one could argue about
"paratypes" but clearly the N specimens were part of the series upon which
the author based his description / name / species AND were not excluded. So,
they match the definition of paratype.

Cotype is no longer an approved term in Zoological Nomenclature

Cheers

F. Christian Thompson
Systematic Entomology Lab., ARS, USDA
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, D. C. 20560-0169
(202) 382-1800 voice
(202) 786-9422 FAX
cthompso at sel.barc.usda.gov [NB: no terminal "n"]
visit our Diptera site at www.diptera.org


>>> Doug Yanega <dyanega at POP.UCR.EDU> 03/28 6:11 PM >>>
A colleague has a question, and wanted to confirm his opinion on the
situation:

Consider a set of species descriptions, each of which reads
"Described from N specimens as follows - [a list follows, from
various dates and places]. Type on a slide which reads as follows -
[label data follows]."

A subsequent author comes along, finds the entire series of slides,
none of which actually has a type label, and therefore designates
them all as cotypes. A third author proposes designating a lectotype
from each series, and calls the other slides paratypes.

Given that the original descriptions each specify a single slide as
being the type, and give label data sufficient to recognize it,
surely the designation of cotypes is completely inappropriate? Or is
there some possible complication engendered by the original author
failing to label the type slide, therefore leaving the slim
possibility that even though the label data match, the slide in
question is NOT the one intended as type? Further, is it not also
true that - regardless of the other issue - the remaining slides
containing all the other N specimens upon which the description is
based (and which have data that does not match the putative type
slide) can't even be considered paratypes, but instead have no status
at all (being, essentially, "other material examined")?

Thanks,
--

Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521
phone: (909) 787-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
            http://entmuseum9.ucr.edu/staff/yanega.html
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82