[Taxacom] Ambiguous lectotype designation?

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Dear Michael,

the Code is silent about such errors in lectotype designations, but it 
is usual practice to tolerate minor errors of this kind. I would 
recommend to publish a statement that this should have read 1587 instead 
of 1586, and explain the circumstances. If this is the only error I 
would tolerate it.

Best wishes
Francisco


-----
Francisco Welter-Schultes

Am 13.04.2019 um 01:35 schrieb 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.
>