Emilio,
Right answer, but for the wrong reason.  Since you did submit the correct
answer I'll have to bestow the award of a free one year subscription to
Conch-L.  Congratulations.

A researcher may designate a figure (not an actual specimen) to serve as a
lectotype.  It is not done often and is frowned upon by some, but it is
considered a valid designation.

Next question:  What are locotypes?  Have we discussed this?  If so,
someone else submit a new question.  I'm tired.  If not, the first person
to submit the correct answer gets .....wait a minute....I'm out of stuff
that's already free.  Forget it.

And locotypes have nothing to do with that crazy family living next door,
your spouse or your boss.

Kurt

At 12:22 PM 7/7/99 EDT, you wrote:
>I kind of jumped in on this conversation at the last second so if this is
>covers old material im sorry. A lectotype, in my view (i could be wrong),
>stends from the timer where a species was thought to have an essence and this
>lectotype describes or represents a "perfect" specimen. Any variation from
>this perfect specimen would just be considered a mutant of this perfect
>species idea. In a species in which there is great variation I can imagine a
>case where they describe what a perfect specimen should be and even help the
>description with a drawing. So if this line of thought is right you do not
>need an actual specimen to serve as a lectotype.
>Emilio Jose
>