Taxacom: Lectotype question

[John Grehan]

Colleagues, I would be grateful for input on the following situation:

When Walker (1856) described the new species *Phassus signifer* he did not
specify a primary type, but listed the following series:

a. Silhet [Sylhet, now in Bangladesh]. From Mr. Argent's collection
b, c. Ceylon [Sri Lanka]. Presented by R. Templeton, Esq.;
d. Sarawak, Borneo. From Mr. Horsburgh's collection."

In a revision of the genus, Tindale (1941) stated that ?Walker's type of
this species, of which Butler's figure [Butler, 1886] is a good rendering,
is a female from Sylhet (labeled ?Silhet, 47-36).

It would appear that Tindale assumed that the Sylhet specimen was the type
even though it was not designated as such by Walker. Does Tindale's
designation of the Sylhet specimen as the 'type' qualify as a lectotype
under the Code rules?

Thanks,

John Grehan
-- 
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Caec8cf7d216b47954cd008dadf75b63f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638067993906179135%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6N0UG3uKqKxKdyNgmEqMxx7HtRR5tyWW5PssCFXxpoI%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.