Paleonet: question about holotype specimens

Pojeta, John POJETAJ at
Thu Aug 23 16:47:52 GMT 2007


I agree with Rod Feldmann's interpretation, and I have published the
part and counterpart of the same specimen as the holotype--See Pojeta,
et al., 2003, Journal of Paloentology, p.646-654.

John Pojeta, Jr.

-----Original Message-----
From: at
[ at] On Behalf Of Jozsef
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 10:58 AM
To: paleonet at
Subject: Paleonet: question about holotype specimens

Dear All,

I'm still working on the type catalogue of our museum.

I've bumped into the following problem:

A decapod crustacean species was described and its holotype designated 
as a carapax, declared in the publication to be deposited in the Vienna 
Nat Hist Museum, whereas the paratypes were deposited in our museum in 
Budapest. When checking all the paratypes, I have noticed that we also 
have in our holding the external mould of the holotype carapax.

Would our specimen, the external mould, also qualify as holotype, as it 
constitutes the fossil record of the same individual? Or should the 
holotype be understood as a unique physical fossil specimen, or solely 
the one that was stated originally by the author?

I have browsed through the relevant sections of the ICZN but remained 
ambiguous. I appeal to your collective wisdom - thanks for any help in 
interpretation or comments you may have.



Jozsef Palfy
Senior Research Scientist
Research Group for Paleontology
Hungarian Academy of Sciences-Hungarian Natural History Museum
POB 137, Budapest, H-1431 Hungary
Phone: +36 1 210-1075/ext. 2310 or +36 1 338 3905
Fax: +36 1 338 2728
E-mail: palfy at

Paleonet mailing list
Paleonet at

More information about the Paleonet mailing list