Taxacom: designation of holotype

[Adam Cotton]

John,

The citation is (6)13: 440.
i.e. Series 6 vol 13.
The original vol. 13 was published in 1844.

Since the number of specimens is not stated, although vaguely implied, 
it is better to treat the extant specimen as a syntype since no holotype 
was designated. There is no proof that Rothschild did not see more than 
one specimen.

Adam.


On 20/02/2025 02:08, John Grehan via Taxacom wrote:
> Sorry - should have considered that. the original publication is
>
> Rothschild, W. 1894. On a new species of the hepialid genus Oenetus. Annals
> and Magazine of Natural History 13: 440.
>
> Its on BHL, but happy to send anyone the copy.