designating a photo as holotype?

[Doug Yanega]

Thomas Pape wrote:

>You can use the image for descriptive purposes only, not as a type as such.
>This holds even for lectotype designations. You mention that illustrations
>may "stand in for a holotype", but the type proper is still the specimen
>illustrated.

That settles that - now that I see the quote, it had come up here once
before, in a discussion way back when (remember the "Type of Homo sapiens?"
thread?), but I'd forgotten the clause that even a *non-existent* specimen
was considered the name-bearing type (as in the case of Nessiteras). So, if
the specimen in the present case had been completely destroyed, it would
still be the holotype, if I used its photo as the basis for the
description, and someone down the road could therefore only designate a
*lectotype* to replace the missing holotype. Okay. Pardon my confusion, and
thanks.

Peace,

Doug Yanega    Depto. de Biologia Geral, Instituto de Ciencias Biologicas,
Univ. Fed. de Minas Gerais, Cx.P. 486, 30.161-970 Belo Horizonte, MG   BRAZIL
phone: 031-449-2579, fax: 031-441-5481  (from U.S., prefix 011-55)
                  http://www.icb.ufmg.br/~dyanega/
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82