> If the author has more than one specimen, recommendation 73A says: "Any
> author who establishes a new nominal species-group taxon should
> designate its holotype in a way that will facilitate its subsequent
> recognition." and recommendation 73D says: "After the holotype has been
> labelled, any remaining specimens of the type series ... should be
> labelled "paratype"  to identify  the components  of the original type
> series."

This is my understanding of paratype. I was rather bothered when the
author of one of the new fossil species of which I had donated the
holotype (and loaned 4 other specimens)cataloged those other 4 as
paratypes... and didn't ask if he could catalog my new architectonicid as
holotype (of course I'd have said yes).

> "Every institution in which name-bearing types are deposited should
>     72F.1 ensure that all are clearly marked so that they will be
> unmistakably recognized as name-bearing types;
>     72F.2 take all necessary steps for their safe preservation;
>     72F.3 make them accessible for study;
>     72F.4 publish lists of name-bearing types in its possession or
> custody; and
>     72F.5 so far as possible, communicate information concerning
> name-bearing types when requested."

I can think of one local museum (which it has a shocking management and as
a result has a high staff-turnover) which held at least one holotype and
DID NOT KNOW IT until I asked them for its loan... the techs there had to
search for it, but fortunately it was eventually found.

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