Hello!

Thanks to Gijs, Dr. Lee and Kevin and others for your answers.

Clench states in one of his Liguus lists, re: Achatina blainiana Poey 1851,
that cotypes
MCZ No xxxyyy & xxxyyy are in the museum collection at Harvard, does this
mean that this
is the type lot? He does not mention holotype, paratype or lectotype which
he usually does
for most of the Liguus in the catalog. It sounds improbable that if the type
lot exists at MCZ there are no holotype, paratype or lectotype specimens
mentioned. Could the holotype and paratype(s)  have been selected and split
off from the lot and deposited in other collections/museums? What is the
reason for a cotype or syntype? Why did he not simply select a lectotype?

--

Later,

Emilio Jorge Power

Please visit;
"The Liguus Home Page"
http://pw1.netcom.com/~ejpower/lighompage.html
West Melbourne, Florida  USA