You've posed an interesting problem. Molyneux's 1697 paper actually describes several specimens of Megaloceros giganteus. The specimen that he examined and measured (in 1697, or just earlier, while it was in the possession of his brother), and which is figured in his 1697 paper, would seem to be the same specimen that Molyneux says was presented by his brother to Lord Capell, a Lord Justice of Ireland, who indicated he would send the antlers to King William III of England (p. 495). At the bottom of p. 495, Molyneux relates an earlier gift of a giant deer head presented to King Charles II by the Duke of Ormond, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland -- this would have had to have been prior to 1685, as Charles II died on February 6th of that year. According to Molyneux, Charles II had the antlers mounted in the "Horn Gallery" at Hampton Court Palace. Stephen Jay Gould also mentions this particular transfer of a specimen of M. giganteus antlers to the British monarchy (citing Molyneux's 1697 paper), in his chapter entitled ""The Misnamed, Mistreated, and Misunderstood Irish Elk" which was included in his 1977 book "Ever Since Darwin". If those antlers are still in the Hampton Court "Horn Gallery", they could be candidates to serve as the neotype for M. giganteus. Similarly, Molyneux describes the discoveries of several M. giganteus antlers that had been found in the years prior to his paper: 1691 by a Major Folliot near the town of Ballymackward in County Fermanagh; 1684 near Turvy, the Mansion Seat of Lord Barnevall, about eight miles from Dublin -- these were apparently placed on display in the "Publick Hall". Two other cases are also mentioned by Molyneux, although no years of discovery are given: a head and antlers found near Portumny, the House of the Earls of Clanricard, County Gallway, and a skull-cap and antlers displayed in the Common Hall of the Archbishop of Armagh's house in Dublin. If any of these specimens are still available, they too could serve as paraneotypes of M. giganteus. Finally, in his 1977 chapter on the Irish Elk, Gould notes that the first complete specimen of the species to be found was discovered in the 1820s on the Isle of Man, and is now in the Museum of Zoology at the University of Edinburgh. Should none of the earlier discoveries from Ireland no longer be available, the Edinburgh specimen could be a candidate as neotype for M. giganteus.

You've posed an interesting problem. Molyneux's 1697 paper actually describes several specimens of Megaloceros giganteus. The specimen that he examined and measured (in 1697, or just earlier, while it was in the possession of his brother), and which is figured in his 1697 paper, would seem to be the same specimen that Molyneux says was presented by his brother to Lord Capell, a Lord Justice of Ireland, who indicated he would send the antlers to King William III of England (p. 495). At the bottom of p. 495, Molyneux relates an earlier gift of a giant deer head presented to King Charles II by the Duke of Ormond, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland -- this would have had to have been prior to 1685, as Charles II died on February 6th of that year. According to Molyneux, Charles II had the antlers mounted in the "Horn Gallery" at Hampton Court Palace. Stephen Jay Gould also mentions this particular transfer of a specimen of M. giganteus antlers to the British monarchy (citing Molyneux's 1697 paper), in his chapter entitled ""The Misnamed, Mistreated, and Misunderstood Irish Elk" which was included in his 1977 book "Ever Since Darwin". If those antlers are still in the Hampton Court "Horn Gallery", they could be candidates to serve as the neotype for M. giganteus. Similarly, Molyneux describes the discoveries of several M. giganteus antlers that had been found in the years prior to his paper: 1691 by a Major Folliot near the town of Ballymackward in County Fermanagh; 1684 near Turvy, the Mansion Seat of Lord Barnevall, about eight miles from Dublin -- these were apparently placed on display in the "Publick Hall". Two other cases are also mentioned by Molyneux, although no years of discovery are given: a head and antlers found near Portumny, the House of the Earls of Clanricard, County Gallway, and a skull-cap and antlers displayed in the Common Hall of the Archbishop of Armagh's house in Dublin. If any of these specimens are still available, they too could serve as paraneotypes of M. giganteus. Finally, in his 1977 chapter on the Irish Elk, Gould notes that the first complete specimen of the species to be found was discovered in the 1820s on the Isle of Man, and is now in the Museum of Zoology at the University of Edinburgh. Should none of the earlier discoveries from Ireland no longer be available, the Edinburgh specimen could be a candidate as neotype for M. giganteus.

Molyneux's specimen is beautiful historical curiosity, but for the neotype designation you are free to choose the best available specimen, without any other preferences than quality of the specimen.

M. Freudenthal, University of Granada

Matthijs Freudenthal is right, simply choose the best available specimen

Hmmm, not sure about simply picking the best - what's best anyway? I think you need to be sure the neotype really fits Blumenbach's original description (if there was any) and then not only quality matters but also availability. Thus a complete specimen already in a public museum (apparently in Edinburgh in this case) indeed seems a good candidate.

you can also go for its DNA Barcoding..I hope its DNA Barcode and some information must be available on DNA Barcode Database system

with "best" we all mean of course: available, of good quality and preservation and fitting the original description as close as possible. DNA barcoding is nice addition, but just an addition, you cannot expect all fossil findings to be analysed in order to determine their taxonomy.

In fact, what I meant with best is look for a specimen that gives both cranial and postcranial information

I don't know the publication of Blumenbach so I cannot give you any detailed data. But even if the original publication where the nomen was established doesn't clearly mention where he saw it, I think that a good possibility is for you to try to investigate Blumenbach biography to see what were the collections that he possibly had visited prior to that and understand if in those collections existed any specimen of the giant deer. In this case, in order to avoid the creation of a neotype, I think that an historical approach to Blumenbach life and scientifical works, as well as to the history of the collections he studied/visited, can provide good hints, and who knows, lead you to the discovery of the long lost holotype. Good hunt!

Actually, there is no obligation to designate neotype if the original description/illustration is satisfactory. The ICZN Article 75.2. says: "Circumstances excluded. A neotype is not to be designated as an end in itself, or as a matter of curatorial routine, and any such neotype designation is invalid. " and later on the Article 75.3.: "Qualifying conditions. A neotype is validly designated when there is an exceptional need and only when that need is stated expressly and when the designation is published with the following particulars:..." Se the code for details and decide whether there is indeed an exceptional need for the neotype.

Thank you, Andrzej, for the useful comment. The problem of missing type specimen of Megaloceros giganteus is the following: this situation brings difficulties in designation and description of subspecies of this deer: if the nominotypic subspecies is not typified and described properly, it is difficult to do something with various continental subspecies and forms. At this moment, I am working upon a paper on giant deer from Eastern Europe and just can not apply the shaky taxonomical basics of this species in my research. Also, if, according to the current state of knowledge, the species and subspecies definition is based on the limited morphological characters, in future those characters may be revised and a type specimen might be very useful in this case.

Ok. So if the neotype is really needed then it has to be as similar (by means of the diagnostic characters) as possible to the original material. At best it should be also topotypic. If the type locality and horizon are unknown then the neotype should be as close as possible to what you think they are (the same region and stratigraphic age). But you know all of that already I suppose... Good luck!

I know this is not entirely relevant, but Megaloceros giganteus was compared to the moose by William Hunter (1718-1783) probably around 1770. He never published because of the difficulty with the concept of extinctions at that time, but the paper he wrote has been published by Ian Rolfe in 1983 (the bicentennial year of the death of William Hunter). The Megaloceros skulls and antlers are still extant in the collections of the Hunterian in Glasgow. For the paper, if you are interested see: http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/pdfplus/10.3366/anh.1983.11.2.263

Thanks for the info and the link, Neil. Unfortunately, the access to the paper is not free and needs a subscription. Meanwhile, I discovered, that Mulyneux's specimen definitely is not the specimen that Blumenbach referred to.

The original text of Blumenbach (1799): “Von einer eignen Art von Elennthieren (Alce gigantea? ), die zumahl in Irland ausgegraben werden, und sich durch ihre mächtige Größe auszeichnen. Von manchen ist der Schedel fast eine Elle lang und stehen die Enden der beiden (zuweilen etliche Centner wiegenden) Geweihe auf 14 Fuß aus einander.“ Therefore, Blumenbach (1799) indicates extremely large size of giant deer and great antler span, achieving 14 foots (ca. 4.3 m) between antler summits. However, Molyneux (1697) reports the measurements of the antlered skull found in Dardistown near Drogheda (Ireland) as following: the antler span amounts to 10 foots 10 inches (ca. 3.3 m, distinctly less that the antler span mentioned in the brief Blumenbach’s description), the skull length amounts to 2 foots (609.6 mm).

Does anyone can suggest the original description of the mounted skeleton from Edinburgh?

I don't know if it is helpful, but there is another large specimen in the Grant Museum at University College London that was supposedly bought from a hotel in Ireland:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums/zoology/collections/objects/giant-deer

The taxonomic difficulty apparently is even more confused. The mounted skeletons of giant deer that I have seen (Nat. Hist. Mus. of Paris, Nat. Hist. Mus. of Bucharest, Paleont. Mus. of München, Univ. of Wroclaw) have different proportions of limb bones, which, however, are perfectly symmetric. I afraid that the most of mounted skeletons of giant deer from Ireland are compiled. There is another difficulty: the metacarpals of giant deer from Ireland form two morphological types: the "long-limbed" type and the "short-limbed" one.