Taxacom: designation of holotype

[John Grehan]

I have a question for clarification. A publication in 1894 described a new
species. It referred to the male, and 'this moth' but did not illustrate or
specify how many specimens. It seems to infer a single specimen. Later, in
2018 a taxonomic revision referred to a holotype male that was examined in
the repository. If there was only a single specimen represented as being
that described in the original publication, does this qualify as being
designated as the holotype, or should it have been designated as a
lectotype. Hope someone well versed in the Code can clarify, as this
hair-splitting stuff which gets me lost at times.

Thanks,

John grehan

-- 
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C3dd01adbac5b43956d7d08dd51160441%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638755877193403279%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0%2BxTMgUmpfwkl7EGiid9jPv0BtHhEyBbT%2F87pbSLezo%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.