[Taxacom] Question about labelling types

[Thomas Pape]

The three specimens are all syntypes, and together they make up the name-being type.
As already given by Francisco and Stephen, in zoology a holotype can only be fixed in the original publication, and if no such fixation the type material will be syntypes.
If a holotype is designated in the original paper, any other specimen in the type series will be a paratype and it will have no name-bearing function.

/Thomas Pape

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Andreas Gminder
Sent: 27. februar 2016 23:46
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Question about labelling types

Hello,

I think syntypes are separated parts of the holotype collection. If the three specimens are not definitely from the same population, then they are better called paratypes.
At least in Botany it is like that, if I'm remebering right.

best regards,
Andreas

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: Stephen Thorpe
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 11:42 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu ; Julio Rivera
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Question about labelling types

Julio,

They are syntypes, but the one labelled as holotype should be chosen as lectotype (if a lectotype is to be designated).

Cheers,

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 28/2/16, Julio Rivera <jrivera at lamolina.edu.pe> wrote:

Subject: [Taxacom] Question about labelling types
To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Sunday, 28 February, 2016, 11:07 AM

Hi taxacomers

I have a situation with the type series of a praying mantis species. Giglio-Tos
(1916) described *Diamusonia media* (now *Thespis media*) on the basis of three specimens. Giglio-Tos did not designate any particular specimen as the type. Although these specimens were presumed to be syntypes in at least one subsequent publication, I recently discovered that one of these specimens does bear a holotype label. So, if the label identifies the specimen as the holotype but it was not explicitly designated as such in the original description, What is the name-bearing status of this specimen?
Still a holotype?

Thanks in advance for your advice.

Regards,


-- 

*Julio Rivera*Associated Researcher
ZOOTAXA Editor for Insecta-Mantodea
Postal Address:
Museo de Entomología *Klaus Raven Buller* Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina Apartado Postal 456 Lima 100 Peru
E.mail: jrivera at lamolina.edu.pe
<jrivera at lamolina.edu.pe>Skype:
julio.rivera.mantodea
Telephone: (+1) 416-585-8046
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: 
http://taxacom.markmail.org

Channeling Intellectual Exuberance for 29 years in 2016.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: 
http://taxacom.markmail.org

Channeling Intellectual Exuberance for 29 years in 2016. 

_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Channeling Intellectual Exuberance for 29 years in 2016.