Actually it appears complicated if specimens published in separate
papers...if however, as in this case, specimens published Together (as often
happens in biostratgraphic papers) then it is the perogative of the author
to let stand subsequent specimens and the second specimen described (the
Russian specimen) becomes the type specimen. The author can also chose
(elect) a third or fourth, etc. specimen to become the type specimen if this
is 'practical' under the circumstances.
    The rules of taxonomy are NOT in stone as if often thought. Overiding
the static 'written regulations' is the consensus of the body of science
using the taxonomy. It has been common in Paleozoic coral studies that first
published papers, etc are set aside for the purposes of practicality. This
has been especially the case in the taxonomy of a rugose colonial coral such
as 'Lithostrotion and Lithostrotionella that become so convoluted that no
one could figure them out.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Gijs C. Kronenberg" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: Type specimens


> This is an interesting contribution, but it makes matters more
complicated,
> and it confuses taxonomy with nomenclature.
> The coral species, named Syringopora nevadenses has been described. A
> holotype was chosen by the original author. So far so good, no problem.
> Later, it appeared that specimens of presumably the same species, were
> collected elswhere, viz. northern Canada and Russia, and named S.
> nevadensis.
> Later on, it became clear that:
> the species known as Syringopora nevadenses had been described earlier
> (with another name I assume). The species S. nevadenses had to be given
its
> earlier name. The holotype of S. nevadenses however still remains the
> holotype of S. nevadenses, nobody can change that.
> S. nevadenses is a junior subjective synonym of another species.
> Specimens from Canada and Russia, previously identified as S. nevadenses
> however turned out to be a new species, or at least, not conspecific with
> S. nevadenses.
> So, they cannot be named S. nevadenses, as S. nevadenses is identifiable
by
> comparing it with the holotype. The name S.nevadenses cannot be applied
for
> another species, as it would establish a junior homonym
> So, there is an unnamed fossil coral species from Russia and Canada,
> previously confused with S. nevadensis.
>
> Gijs C. Kronenberg
>
> ----------
> > Van: Joe and Nora <[log in to unmask]>
> > Aan: [log in to unmask]
> > Onderwerp: Type specimens
> > Datum: dinsdag 5 december 2000 6:41
> >
> > Joe here. Just an 'aside' on type specimens, holotypes, etc.. Woe be he
> who
> > does not take care in maming a new species. Take the case of a tabulate
> > Devonian coral 'Syringopora nevadenses'...named after a specimen
> described
> > from Nevada...During some stages of the Devonian, the faunal province
> > extended from Nevada to across what is today Western Canada, through the
> > Arctic into northern Russia. Similar corals found in northern Canada and
> > Russia were therefore given the same name 'nevadenses'...Then it was
> decided
> > that the Nevada coral was really the same as another species previously
> > named...and the holotype lost its status as a new type specimen...but
the
> > Canadian and Russian specimens were determined to indeed be new and kept
> the
> > name 'nevadenses'.. and a Russian specimen became the type specimen of
> > Syrigopora nevadenses...otherwise the coral named after Nevada was no
> longer
> > thought to occur in Nevada but occured in Canada and Russia. Today the
> type
> > specimen named after Nevada is a Russian specimen!!!