[Taxacom] Ambiguous lectotype designation?

[Michael Oliver]

Eccles & Trewavas (1989)** redescribed the cichlid fish *Haplochromis
heterodon* Trewavas, 1935, transferring it to *Otopharynx. *From the
several lots of syntypes they designated a lectotype, referring to it in
two places. First (p. 157), a specimen drawing is captioned "*Fig. 79*.
Otopharynx heterodon *(Trewavas). Lectotype. Male, 96 mm SL; Monkey Bay."*
Second (p. 158), under Material examined: "*Lectotype: *BMNH 1935.6.14.
*1586*. Male, 96 mm SL; Monkey Bay, coll. Christy. (Fig. 79)."

The problem is, the specimen with register number 1586 is NOT the one drawn
in Fig. 79. It measures only 86 mm SL. Furthermore, the original drawing
for Fig. 79 includes the notation "No. 326" and a specimen in another lot,
1935.6.14.*1587*, has the collector's tag "326" tied to it (and this
specimen is the expected 96 mm SL; I have examined both specimens).

Thus, I think it is clear that 1587 (the drawn fish) is the intended
lectotype, despite the misstated register number under Material examined.

Is this lectotype designation ambiguous? Will it be sufficient when
redescribing this species (as planned) to explain the confusion and provide
the correct register number of 1935.6.14.*1587?*
___
**Eccles, D. H. and E. Trewavas. 1989. Malaŵian Cichlid Fishes. The
Classification of Some Haplochromine Genera. Herten: Lake Fish Movies. 335
pp.
-- 
Michael K. Oliver, Ph.D.      A man and a woman / Are one.
MalawiCichlids.com            A man and a woman and a blackbird / Are one.

-- Wallace Stevens