[Taxacom] When electing a neotype, how to define the other gender

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

From: <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 5:53 PM

[...]
> I know that there are people who even want to have paratypes kicked out of
> the Code as they are no name bearers, but in our fear that we might touch
> something that is science as supposed to pure nomenclature, we should not
> forget that the Code should be a helpful tool, not a statement of pure
> nomenclatural philosophy. Shouldn't it?

***
This invites a comparison to how the ICNafp handles paratypes.
Interestingly, the definition of syntype and paratype is comparable
in both Codes, but their status is not. In the ICNafp syntype and
paratype have the same status, which is midway between the status
of syntype and the status of paratype in the zoological Code, that
is, they cannot be name-bearing types but do play a part in the
selection of a lectotype.

On the whole, the ICNafp is considerably cleaner in how it handles
the matter; there is nothing as awkward as a type series, and there
are not all those conditions for designating a neotype. In the absence
of a holotype, a lectotype can be designated from the original material;
in the absence of original material a neotype can be designated and
this can be material as recent as one likes. If there are real problems
a proposal for conservation can be submitted, setting a type.

Common to both Codes is the presence of terms containing the word
element "-type" for things that are not name-bearing types, and this is
indeed confusing to the newcomer, but it seems to late to do anything
about this.

Paul