Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 5 Jun 2007 10:21:55 +1200 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|