Re: Labrosaurus (was RE: birds and dinosaurs)

[Ken Carpenter <KCarpenter@dmns.org>]

Consider the following hypothetical:

John Smith names and described Alphasaurus jonesi in 1938 for a partial, 
skull-less, small theropod skeleton on a slab of lacustrine shale. The holotype 
is lost in a fire in 1968. In 2004, Phil Bigelow relocates the site where the 
original specimen was found and excavates another partial skeleton. Phil 
describe the specimen and designates the new specimen as the neotype for 
Alphasaurus jonesi. The specimen comes from the same quarry as the original 
(now lost), so there is no doubt that it  is the same species. The neotype is 
the "new type" and is not designated a referred specimen. OR

John Smith names and described Alphasaurus jonesi in 1938 for a partial, 
skull-less, small theropod skeleton on a slab of lacustrine shale. The 
following year he goes back and collects more specimens and writes these up 
because they supplement the original description. These he lists as referred 
specimens because they were published on at a later date. The holotype is 
borrowed and is lost in the mail (this actually has happened). In 2004, Phil 
Bigelow is doing his Ph.D. on maniraptorans and discovers that the holotype of 
Alphasaurus jonesi is now lost. He selects one of the referred specimens as the 
neotype, and the other specimens still remain referred specimens. Naturally, he 
submits a brief note to the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology alerting 
everyone of this change.

Ken


>>> Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com> 07/Jul/04 >>>
The definition of "neotype" is pretty clear.
But if the holotype, lectotype, or syntype was lost or destroyed, then
that means that a prior publication exists that describes the type.  So
if a *subsequent* publication creates a neotype, then the neotype *must*
be considered referred, because its material doesn't appear in the
original publication.  No?

<pb>
--


On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 12:25:55 -0600 "Ken Carpenter" <KCarpenter@dmns.org>
writes:
> (ICZN) a specimen subsequently designated as the name-bearing type of 
> a species or subspecies for which, it is believed, there no longer 
> exists a holotype, lectotype, syntype(s), or prior neotype (i.e. 
> type lost or destroyed) 
> 
> 
> Kenneth Carpenter, Ph.D.
> Curator of Lower Vertebrate Paleontology &
> Chief Preparator
> Dept. of Earth Sciences
> Denver Museum of Natural History 
> 2001 Colorado Blvd.
> Denver, CO 80205
> 
> Phone: (303)370-6392
> Fax: (303)331-6492
> email: KCarpenter@DMNS.org 
> 
> For fun:
>  http://dino.lm.com/artists/display.php?name=Kcarpenter 
> 
> 
> >>> Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com> 07/Jul/04 >>>
> Does that mean that a neotype is also a referred specimen?
> 
> <pb>
> --
> 
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 10:41:58 -0600 Ken Carpenter 
> <KCarpenter@dmns.org>
> writes:
> > Mickey is correct, however, that the paratype must be designated 
> in 
> > the same publication as the holotype . Any specimen mentioned 
> > afterwards (even in a redescription of the holotype) are referred 
> 
> > specimens.
> > Ken
> > 
> > Kenneth Carpenter, Ph.D.
> > Curator of Lower Vertebrate Paleontology &
> > Chief Preparator
> > Dept. of Earth Sciences
> > Denver Museum of Natural History 
> > 2001 Colorado Blvd.
> > Denver, CO 80205
> > 
> > Phone: (303)370-6392
> > Fax: (303)331-6492
> > email: KCarpenter@DMNS.org 
> > 
> > For fun:
> >  http://dino.lm.com/artists/display.php?name=Kcarpenter 
> > 
> > 
> > >>> "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <tholtz@geol.umd.edu> 07/Jul/04 >>>
> > > From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On 
> > Behalf Of
> > > Tim Williams
> > >Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
> > >Actually, the "paratype" (technically a topotype, as Chure points 
> 
> > out) and
> > >the (unnecessary) neotype were officially indicated in Madsen 
> > (1976, p. 10).
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
> 



________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!