This thread has turned out to be valuable in order to illustrate some of
the quirks of the Zoological Code in a lighthearted way. How about that!
I'm glad (some of) you enjoyed the song.
 
Ferreter asks if it is painful to become a type specimen. It's usually
fatal, true, but it is not always painful. Zoologists who study the soft
parts of mollusks and other marine creatures generally anaesthetize them
first using menthol, warm water, progressively freshened water, and other
means. A relaxed animal is so much easier to study than one which has
curled up into a puckered lump. Or one which has retreated into its shell.
In "The Erotic Ocean", a book about the common nearshore creatures of
northwest  Florida, Jack Rudloe describes the different methods that are
needed to anaesthetize and preserve each group of animals. A method that
works well for one group may be no good for another.
 
And in the old days, when preservation techniques were not well developed,
it was altogether impossible to preserve some species. Think of
nudibranchs, for example. Therefore, under the Code, an illustration of an
animal can be accepted as representing the type specimen, even if the
specimen no longer exists (ICZN, Articles 12b(7), 74c). This rule has a
cut-off date of December 31, 1930; in 1931 and after, an illustration is
not sufficient documentation for a new species. A description is now
required. I don't know how many molluscan species were originally based on
illustrations, but the number must be fairly large for the early days. Does
anyone have any idea?
 
Thus, to extend Gary Rosenberg's comments, we can accept not only human
remains, but also *illustrations* of any person known to Linnaeus up to
1758, as representing the type series of Homo sapiens. Linnaeus was
certainly known to himself, so he must be in the type series, and we do
have portraits of him. It wasn't painful for him.
 
Andrew K. Rindsberg
Geological Survey of Alabama