I agree with you in all details. A sample labelled as cotype(s) should be
checked with the original description
for correct locality-data, date of collection,  etc. Especially material
distributed by authors, who were known dealers of shells (like P. Pallary
and H.B. Preston for instance; the latter even distributed numerous samples
supplied with new names and labelled as cotype(s) before he described
actually the material and quite a number remained supplied with manuscript
names only), should be turned over and over before accepting them as
original typematerial.
Henk K. Mienis
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew K. Rindsberg <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: types


> The situation with cotypes is not as simple as Henk Mienis puts it. As Tom
> Watters pointed out, "cotype" meant different things to different
> researchers. To evaluate the current status of cotypes, we must know what
> the author meant by "cotype," which means looking at the labels of many
> additional specimens.
>
> By this method, I was able to ascertain that Truman H. Aldrich labeled
> specimens of species A as "cotypes" if he identified them as A, regardless
> of whether the specimens were collected before or after the species was
> formally named, and regardless of whether the specimens were collected at
> the type locality or somewhere else. To be included as a primary type
today,
> only specimens collected before publication, and from a locality mentioned
> in the paper and eligible as a type locality, can even be considered. The
> result is that some of Aldrich's "cotypes" are syntypes and others are
not;
> each must be considered on an individual basis.
>
> Others defined "cotype" as a synonym of "syntype" or with other meanings,
so
> we don't use the word anymore except in a historical context, e.g., to
quote
> a label.
>
> Andrew K. Rindsberg
> Geological Survey of Alabama