DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE!! This page is automatically generated by PageComment macro.
,0 GaryRosenberg 2010-04-20 14:32:06 For Article 73.2.2 add "or set aside by action of the Commission."
,1 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2016-01-09 16:51:26 Art. 73.1.5 . The English version should perhaps be aligned more closely to the French text, which seems to explain the specially addressed case better. This Article only seems to make sense in the light of a holotype being one single specimen (so, nothing that can be deposited in two different collections, or obtain different collection numbers), and have been artificially composed together (for example by sewing). . It might be useful, if agreed, to exclude expressly the option that various separated parts of an individual could be meant here. The term "specimen", which forms the backbone of the term "holotype" was interpreted in a form that it could refer to a total of several distinct objects, by various authors involved in Cases 3564 and 3623. . Example: The holotype for Crocodylus niloticus Laurenti, 1768 was a specimen that was sold be seamen in the early 1700s to Albertus Seba in Amsterdam, for his collection. Later it was found that this specimen was composed of various components that had been sewed together, of at least two different species of Central American crocodiles of the genus Paleosuchus.
,1 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2016-01-17 09:39:41 Art. 73.1.4 . This Article seems to have been misunderstood by unexperienced taxonomists, for example by Barrera et al. 2010 in the Grallaria bird Case 3623. The authors of the description of a new bird species assumed that designating as holotype an animal of which photographs were published, had something to do with an application of Art. 73.1.4. One source of the misunderstanding was the provision "the fact that the specimen no longer exists or cannot be traced does not of itself invalidate the designation", which they assigned to their own case because the bird was released into the wild and could not be traced any more. . It would be useful to add examples. Either 2 or 3 real examples or a virtual example could be given to illustrate common practice in historical sources, where it said: "Holotype Pl. 3 Fig. 5". Another example would show the limit at the other side: if the original source indicated "Holotype is the individual depicted on Pl. 3 Fig. 5", then this Article would not come into effect.
,1 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2016-02-27 17:34:00 Art. 73.2 . "holotype [Art. 72.1]" should read "holotype [Art. 73.1]"