>You have, however, correctly described an earlier concept of the "type
>specimen" itself. Some workers, such as T. A. Conrad, would make a
>composite drawing of a new species, based on several specimens (none of
>which might be complete). The drawing thus represents no single specimen,
>but a reconstruction or ideal concept of a species. In most cases, Conrad
>did it well; nevertheless, it is disconcerting when one finds that none of
>the syntypes match the drawing.

Andrew:

Even worst is when the people who did the drawings would take some artistic
license with their drawing.  I have seen some "type" specimens in the
"flesh" (or I guess as calcium carbonate shells) that were originally drawn
for publication (and the shells have never actually been photographed and
printed) and you would hardly recognize the specimen for the drawing.  Some
of the most vivid examples I have seen are not so much in mollusca but in
crustacea described by Mary J. Rathbun, I wish I had some of what they were
smoking at the time they were drawing the figures.

Yes, my first experience with some of the Conrad "types" was a real eye
opener.

Paul


>
>Andrew K. Rindsberg
>Geological Survey of Alabama
>
>"I hope we stay serene and calm
>When Alabama gets the Bomb."
>        Tom Lehrer, "Who's Next?"
>
>