This was the occasion for me to question the difference between “locus typicus” and “locus classicus”. I interpreted it as : locus typicus = locus natalis of the type ; locus classicus = place where the species is usually collected from.
Apparently authors consider locus classicus and locus typicus as synoms.
Locus natalis is “provenance” for any specimen, right ?
Here is a paper that, according to me, can be considered as a good model for quotation of types and locus typicus.
Article Integrative taxonomy sheds light on an old problem: The Ulot...
It was published in Taxon a reference journal for plant taxonomy, as you know.
Ok. Thanks! Locus classicus is considered important for representing the species richness of a certain region. For example, the largest number of plant species in Uzbekistan was recorded from Surkhandarya, Kashkadarya, and Tashkent regions.
In Taschkent I had a colleague whos is a palaeobotanist studying fossil wood, just as I do. His name is R.X. Khudayberdyev. Have you heard about him ? I get no news since several years