Paleonet: question about holotype specimens
POJETAJ at si.edu
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.
From: paleonet-bounces+pojetaj=si.edu at nhm.ac.uk
[mailto:paleonet-bounces+pojetaj=si.edu at nhm.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Jozsef
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 10:58 AM
To: paleonet at nhm.ac.uk
Subject: Paleonet: question about holotype specimens
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.
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 nhmus.hu
Paleonet mailing list
Paleonet at nhm.ac.uk
More information about the Paleonet