Holotype selection criteria

[John Grehan]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Fabio Moretzsohn
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:01 PM
> To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] Holotype selection criteria
> 
> I have to admit that the message I sent yesterday about holotype
selection
> made me sound completely clueless. Despite contrary evidence from that
> message, I am familiar with the taxonomic practice. And I believe that
the
> holotype should be a typical specimen, close as possible to the
average of
> the range of variation of the species, and not an extreme .

I would ask whether the need for the type to be the average of the range
of variation of the species makes any difference to the role of the type
as a reference specimen. If the species is recognized by an
autapomorphy, for example, then as long as all individuals expressed
that apomorphy it would not seem to matter whether the specimen was
close to the average range of variation of the species.

John Grehan
> 
> What prompted me to write the ill-drafted posting was a quote from
Winston
> (1999: 173): "A type-specimen may or may not be typical of the
species;
> the
> important point is that it provides a fixed reference for the use of
the
> name (Jeffrey, 1989)."
> 
> I think a non-typical type is a poor selection, so I tried to come up
with
> some criteria that might be used to select such a type, and I wanted
to
> know
> how some of you might defend that point of view.
> 
> Fabio
> -----------------
> Winston, J.E. 1999. Describing Species. Practical Taxonomic Procedure
for
> Biologists. Columbia University Press, New York