Article 74 of ICZN applies, when a species was originally described without a designation of type (holotype / paratype) and instead based on a series of specimens (syntypes). To stabilize the name (taxonomy), a later researcher may select one of these syntypes as the lectotype (as the single name bearing type). Wherein the ‘type specimen’ is chosen from the original type series.

Article 75 of the ICZN applies when no name-bearing type specimen (holotype, paratype, lectotype, or syntypes) exists. If the designated type has been lost, destroyed, or is untraceable, a new specimen from outside the original type series may be designated as the neotype. Although neotype designation serves to stabilize taxonomy, it is subject to strict conditions under Article 75.3, including justification of need, diagnostic features, and evidence that the original types are lost. Article 75.3.6 requires evidence that the neotype was collected as nearly as practicable from the original type locality, while Article 76.3 clarifies that the type locality is determined by the neotype. In addition, Recommendation 75A provides guidance on the ‘choice of neotypes,’ and Recommendation 75B emphasizes the importance of ‘consultation with specialists.’

Do our current practices in type fixation truly align with the intent of the ICZN in stabilizing taxonomy?