I'll pipe in - saying I have many interesting and different shells from
a restricted area.
Restricted - mostly since WWII.   Several researchers have been able to
gain access
and gained prestige with his peers.  Naming a number of new species.  I
happened
to have some of those from many years ago.  So while he might have the
Holotypes
I certainly have important members of that species.

My problem is what to do with my collection.  I suppose I see to much TV
and read books
where 'the best men will care for them' turns out to be a warehouse fork
lift operator.
Just what good would that be to anyone.  I might have a dozen or more
new species
that only good and best men could find.

I'm nervous that my large collection would be stored and maybe a student
40 years
from now when the building was being moved might find them, or be
assigned a PhD
grant to find out what is in the 100 or so archive boxes. Not bad - but
late in the race.

So for the big guys that have large collections - they set their rules
for their stuff.
But some of us collectors that don't have a relationship with anyone
except through
this site and two universities - still have issues of stability myself.
A person can't be,
but a museum could if it wanted.

And I am in awe with the active membership in this group.

Martin

On 9/12/2011 9:37 PM, Charles Sturm wrote:
> I would like to make two points. The first is that according to the ICZN
> the holotype should be deposited in an institution that will protect it
> and make it available for further study (Recommendation 16C). Since
> paratypes are not name bearing types, the Code is silent on what becomes
> of them. While I recognize the owners of these specimens can dispose of
> them how they would like, I (and I can only speak for myself) would like
> to see them deposited in "stable collections", for example a museum that
> holds its collection as a public trust.
>
> In the example that follows (from Rich's post) ICZN 72.4 and the example
> cited in the Code, would suggest that these specimens are also paratypes
> if they were seen by the describer.
>
>>   On the flip side, and of almost equal value, are what have been coined
>> shells from the "original series".  Essentially these are
>> shells that were collected at the time of the type material, but are
>> above and beyond a core group of needed type material.
> My reading of this part of the Code is that any specimen that was studied
> by one describing a new species whether cited as a type specimen in the
> description, unless explicitly excluded, is a type, in this case a
> paratype.
>
> At the Carnegie Museum, there is one taxon with a holotype and over 200
> paratypes. This is not counting the paratypes that were sent to other
> institution. A lose of several paratypes from this taxon would hardly be
> noticed. My (and again I speak for myself) difficulty is when I see that
> in addition to the holotype there are only a few paratypes and these do no
> get deposited in an appropriate institution. I would prefer that these be
> placed in several institutions to preserve the type series. Again, despite
> my desires, the owners of these specimens are free to dispose of them as
> they would like and I while I might not like it, I will defend their right
> to do so.
>
> Regards,
> Charlie
> .................................................
> Charlie Sturm
>
> Research Associate - Section of Mollusks
> Carnegie Museum of Natural History
> Pittsburgh, PA, USA
>
> Assistant Professor - Family Medicine
> Fellow-American Academy of Family Practice
> Fellow-Academy of Wilderness Medicine
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------