Nowadays, an author is required to use the words 'holotype' and
'paratype', and the rank of 'syntype' (formerly also 'cotype') should no
longer exist. Some people still don't go by the rules, however, and
manage to get their work into publications whose editors don't
understand them either.
Syntypes are all the types that belonged (whether they are specifically
mentioned in the text or not) to the type series of a species in whose
original description a holotype was not selected. To do the latter, you
don't necessarily have to have used the word 'holotype'; just saying
'the single specimen to hand' or 'known from a sole example' or suchlike
allows subsequent workers to infer a holotype by 'monotypy'. There are
limits to how far the rules help, though; for example, you'd think that
use of the expression 'type' along with a museum number would be a sure
inference of monotypy and hence a holotype, but in many cases where
Pilsbry used that word, he was referring to a numbered lot that actually
contains more than one specimen - and monotypy thus was not established.

When you are dealing with names created before, oh, about 1980, it's
rarely simple...

PC.



Paul Callomon
Collections Manager
Malacology, Invertebrate Paleontology and General Invertebrates
Department of Malacology
Academy of Natural Sciences
1900 Parkway, Philadelphia PA 19103-1195, USA
Tel 215-405-5096
Fax 215-299-1170
Secretary, American Malacological Society
On the web at www.malacological.org
>>> Wiggers <[log in to unmask]> 02/25/08 3:03 PM >>>
No! all specimens used in a description are syntypes. If an auther
states a single specimen as a type of a species, it is called holotype
and the others are paratypes.

If an author, when reviewing a species description, elects a specimens
as type it is called a lectotype and the other speciemens are
paralectotypes.

regards
Fabio Wiggers

[log in to unmask] escreveu: Ross,

If the specimens were examined by the person describing the taxon, they
would be paratypes. Please note, if they were examined by the describer,
they would be paratypes, unless the describer specifically excluded them
and stated so.

If the specimens were from the type lot, however, were removed before
the
taxon was described (and not seen by the describer) they have no
taxonomic
standing (ie: holotype, paratype, neotype, lectotype, paralectotype).
They
could be called topotypes, specimens of a given taxon from the type
locality.

> I "should" know this, and no doubt there is a plethera  of info on the
> web to help me, but Conch-l is easier and more fun!!
>
> What does one call a specimen which is from the same "lot" (group of
> specimens collected from a single population at the same time) that
the
> type specimen(s) of a given taxa were selected - ie, the specimen in
> question was from the same lot of shells used when describing the
taxa,
> but not selected as an "official" type specimen of any type?
>
>  From sunny, spring-like New Scotland,
> Ross Mayhew.
> ( http://www.schnr-specimen-shells.com/ )
>
> ---


---------------------------------
Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail, o único sem limite de espaço para
armazenamento!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------