Hi Anna! the type is lost?

Hi Hanna,

type lost or not, if you considers that subspecies is a junior subjective synonym of the nominal species, no problem !

But what do you want to say : no have a type specimen ? No type indicated in the description ?

Dera Anna,

What I could gather from your text is that the species A that you are revising has no type indicated but a junior synonym subspecies described has a type. You have to check with the original description of the species, try to locate the original collections, and try to indicate lectotype if not typified earlier. If original collections not known, designate a neotype. The type of a heterotypic junior synonym has no codal standing in this case.

Hi all!

So, the type specimen has been lost or destroyed, the original description reports "Paraguay" as the type locality, but does not refers to any type specimen. There are no doubts about the species identity. Therefore, according to the Code (1999) there shouldn't be need to designate a neotype (Art. 75.2.). After 1900, an author described a subspecies and designated a type specimen, which is alike the nominal species and has been collected in "Paraguay". This subspecies name is therefore a junior synonym of the nominal species.

Does this type specimen, even if collected in the same locality as reported in the original description, stay attached to the name of the subspecies, losing codal standing?

Many thanks,

Anna

The holotype of the subspecies is attached to the subspecies only; it has no relevance for the species which was described by another author, even if it is a junior synonym. However, it continues to be the holotype of the subspecies, even if it is treated as a junior synonym.

If the species was validly described but has no type, either because none was designated or none is extant, and its identity is in doubt or stability of nomenclature is threatened, a neotype may be designated following the provisions International Code on Zoological Nomenclature. You should, however, provide evidence that the type specimen, or syntype series, is lost. If the identity is not in doubt, there is no need to designate a neotype.

Great, thanks so much Mr Fricke.

Now, final question: what species/susbspecies are you revising? Let us know the name...:)

LOL

I'm revising a genus of parakeets (Aratinga sensu Peters 1937)

A type is that element which is permanently attached to a name. If for any name there is no type, one needs to designate a type for that. 

One can search the original protologue for the original elements. A lectotype can be designated from these original element.

In case there is no original element found, then any specimen can be designated as a neotype. 

But, no way the type of the subspecies can be considered as the type of any species.

Dear Suchandra:

Please note there are differences in the Botanical and Zoological codes of nomenclature.

For parakeets, the provisions of the International Code on Zoological Nomenclature must be followed.

With best wishes,

Ron

I think Dr Ronald Fricke has settled the issue very amicably.

Thanks Dr Fricke

I could hardly add anything to Dr Fricke's comment. It seems that the missing information is the meaning of 'does not have a type specimen'. Wether or not it existed, was lost, not identified... in that cases a neotype could /should be designated...

My regards

Nothing to add except the strong advise to act strictly following the regulations in the code, which can be checked step by step online:

http://iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp

Lot of fuzzy work, but worth to be done anyway!

best regards,

Uwe

Thanks you all! Nice to receive an international reply! :D

Dr Fricke has provided excellent answers.