Homo sapiens lectotype

[Doug Yanega]

Barry Roth wrote:

>How could the skull of Cope be a lectotype when it was not part of
>the original type-series?  A neotype, maybe?

Hmm. That *is* odd, isn't it? Maybe Bakker doesn't know how the Code
works - every reference to it that I've found online specifically
states "lectotype" (except one which states "holotype"), which is how
I first heard it several years ago, as well. Some of the references
state the ICZN approved the designation, published in The Journal of
the Wyoming Geological Society in 1993. It might be argued to have
proper claim to being a neotype, given that Linnaeus did not actually
designate any type specimen, but surely Linnaeus had illustrations in
his original description - maybe H. sapiens is one of those
unfortunate species whose type is an illustration? Anyone have an
actual copy of what Bakker's paper says?

I also notice some of the online references indicate that upon
examination, it appears that the skull in question does not seem to
match the other bones in Cope's remains, suggesting that it isn't
even Cope's skull.
--

Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521-0314
phone: (951) 827-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
              http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82