Neotypes

[Neal Evenhuis]

On Mon, 18 Dec 1995, Robin Leech wrote:

> No, because a neotype has to be a specimen - not a shadow or some other
> thing such as a photo.
>
> Robin Leech

Though this question started out dealing with botanical "neotypes", Robin
has brought up some things that possibly need clarification with regard
to the ICZN Code and possibly some corrections needed in the new draft
Code of the ICZN. (I have not checked the botanical Code to see what is
stipulated there in this regard.)


Specimens depicted in illustrations ARE allowed under the current ICZN
Code to be name-bearing types (Article 72c(v)) and lectotypes are allowed
to be based on specimens depicted in illustrations (74c) and have been
(Culex pipiens Linnaeus was one, if memory serves me correctly), but under
Neotypes (Art. 75), only "specimens" are mentioned as possible neotypes.
The glossary defines "specimen" as "an individual" or "a group of
individuals derived by vegetative or asexual multiplication from a single
individual and forming a single entity", which then by definition excludes
specimens depicted in illustrations or other images from being considered
as neotypes because they are not "specimens". In order to maintain
consistency and to correspond with what is allowed for name-bearing types
(Art. 72), Article 75 should be re-written to specifically make mention of
specimens depicted in illustrations and other images as allowable to be
selected as neotypes.

Neal Evenhuis

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Neal L. Evenhuis                     |  tel:   (808) 848-4138
Department of  Natural Sciences      |  fax:   (808) 847-8252
Bishop Museum,  P.O.Box 19000        |  email: neale at bishop.bishop.hawaii.org
Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-0916 USA      |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~