Thank you Gijs, I thought that coral example made things more confusing
than it helped, and you succinctly and accurately explained why.
Although after reading the next explanation about switching types from
the first to the second specimen in unrelated lots, I am glad that I do
not have to deal with corals!
Allen Aigen  [log in to unmask]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 19:45:28 +0100 "Gijs C. Kronenberg"
<[log in to unmask]> writes:
> This is an interesting contribution, but it makes matters more
> complicated,
> and it confuses taxonomy with nomenclature.
> The coral species, named Syringopora nevadenses has been described.
> A
> holotype was chosen by the original author. So far so good, no
> problem.
> Later, it appeared that specimens of presumably the same species,
> were
> collected elswhere, viz. northern Canada and Russia, and named S.
> nevadensis.
> Later on, it became clear that:
> the species known as Syringopora nevadenses had been described
> earlier
> (with another name I assume). The species S. nevadenses had to be
> given its
> earlier name. The holotype of S. nevadenses however still remains
> the
> holotype of S. nevadenses, nobody can change that.
> S. nevadenses is a junior subjective synonym of another species.
> Specimens from Canada and Russia, previously identified as S.
> nevadenses
> however turned out to be a new species, or at least, not conspecific
> with
> S. nevadenses.
> So, they cannot be named S. nevadenses, as S. nevadenses is
> identifiable by
> comparing it with the holotype. The name S.nevadenses cannot be
> applied for
> another species, as it would establish a junior homonym
> So, there is an unnamed fossil coral species from Russia and Canada,
> previously confused with S. nevadensis.
>
> Gijs C. Kronenberg
>
> ----------
> > Van: Joe and Nora <[log in to unmask]>
> > Aan: [log in to unmask]
> > Onderwerp: Type specimens
> > Datum: dinsdag 5 december 2000 6:41
> >
> > Joe here. Just an 'aside' on type specimens, holotypes, etc.. Woe
> be he
> who
> > does not take care in maming a new species. Take the case of a
> tabulate
> > Devonian coral 'Syringopora nevadenses'...named after a specimen
> described
> > from Nevada...During some stages of the Devonian, the faunal
> province
> > extended from Nevada to across what is today Western Canada,
> through the
> > Arctic into northern Russia. Similar corals found in northern
> Canada and
> > Russia were therefore given the same name 'nevadenses'...Then it
> was
> decided
> > that the Nevada coral was really the same as another species
> previously
> > named...and the holotype lost its status as a new type
> specimen...but the
> > Canadian and Russian specimens were determined to indeed be new
> and kept
> the
> > name 'nevadenses'.. and a Russian specimen became the type
> specimen of
> > Syrigopora nevadenses...otherwise the coral named after Nevada was
> no
> longer
> > thought to occur in Nevada but occured in Canada and Russia. Today
> the
> type
> > specimen named after Nevada is a Russian specimen!!!