>Date:    Sun, 11 Jun 2000 01:09:27 -0400
>From:    Helmut Nisters <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: AW: question about topotype
>
>A topotype has nothing to to with the rules of nomenclature as the other
>types will do. It's not important to have
>a topotypus and it is without value. It's only say that the shell is
>coming from the typical or origin locality, but
>says not more. Many collectors use the term topotype but for myself and
>the museum's collection I don't use.
>with best shelling greetings
>Helmut from Innsbruck

I don't think that the above statement from Helmut is entirely correct.
While topotypes do not have the standing of say lectotypes, holotypes, or
paratypes in nomenclature, to say they are not important is not true.  If
for example a type (holotype, lectotype) has been lost or destroyed it is
advisable to select a new type.  The first choice for a Neotype would be
another specimens from the syntypic series if one exists, then from
paratypes if they exist, and so on.  If none of the preceeding can be
found, then a neotype should be selected from the type locality or from an
existing topotype.  So they do have some value.

Kevin

Kevin S. Cummings
Illinois Natural History Survey
607 E. Peabody Drive
Champaign, IL 61820
[log in to unmask]
http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/cbd/collections/mollusk.html