5/31/2007 – Marlo Krisberg (Merritt Island, FL):

For a layman’s review, the following are the correct definitions for most of the terms being used:

Holotype - If an author relies upon a single specimen to describe a species, that single specimen is the holotype.

Syntypes - If an author uses a group of specimens (sometimes referred to as the type series) to describe a species, the shells in the group are called syntypes. In this circumstance, there is no holotype. (Note: Authors do make mistakes. If a type series actually contains more than one species, the description the author produces may be flawed. This circumstance has been the source of much confusion with species named by not so meticulous authors. See neotype, below.) Member Charlie Sturm notes that "Sometimes, in older literature, syntype is known as co-type."

Holotype - If an author uses a group of specimens to describe a species and designates one to represent the species, then that one becomes the holotype.

Paratypes - If an author uses a group of specimens to describe a species and designates one to represent the species (the holotype), then the others in the group are called paratypes. (Note that authors do make mistakes and all specimens in a group examined may not be the species described and represented as the holotype. That is why identification comparisons should be made to the holotype, lectotype or neotype if at all possible.)

Lectotype - If, after an author names a species based upon a group of syntypes, a later author designates one of the syntypes to represent the species, it is called a lectotype. If the original author relied upon syntypes and included an illustration of one of the specimens, that specimen is also often referred to as the lectotype.

Paralectotypes - If a lectotype is designated, then the other paratypes in the original syntypes group become paralectotypes.

Neotype - If all the above types for a species are lost and descriptions/illustrations are ambiguous, an author can select a suitable specimen to represent the species, clarify the description, and designate that specimen as the neotype.

Iconotype - The illustration of the type created with and to facilitate the original description. If the original type material is lost this illustration may serve as the type. If the illustration is a photograph, then Phototype might be used instead of Iconotype.

Type locality - The type locality is the locality for the holotype, lectotype or neotype.

5/31/2007 – Fabio Wiggers:

I guess the problem with Holotypes and Paratypes in private collections is that in time they sooner or later get lost. This creates a huge taxonomic problem because researchers can't compare their material with those used in describing the species. In time, the species tens to be placed in uncertain place as nobody is sure if the description was precise, and then the name tends to be forgotten (nomem oblitum - not used as valid in the last 50 years).

There are many examples of type material in private collections that can no longer be traced. Fortunately, some of this material end up in institutions, like the collections of Morch, Spengler, Lamarck and others. Peter Dance has a marvelous book on this matter called "A history of shell collecting".

I also guess that the main problem is that collectors rarely keep old labels and therefore destroy the possibility of tracing material from their collections. I hope John have kept this type material labels and one day he donates (or sells) this material to a institution.

And John, be very careful when buying holotypes! Many times those specimens have been stolen from institutions! It has happened here in Brazil a few times and curators don't like to talk about it, but it happens.

Indeed a Holotype is the single specimen the author designate as so when describing a species. If he/she has used more specimens in the description, those are Paratypes. If the author has not named any single specimen as Holotype all of them are Syntypes.

A Topotype has no taxonomic recognition, and is any specimen collected in the same type locality (locality where the holotype has been collected or localities where all the paratypes have been collected).

The term "type form" is used very widely between orchid collectors (i am one of them) to express that the flower is of the same variety as the type, and not an variant. Is the term type form used in the same sense?

6/1/2007 – worldwide:

If a person squirrels away Holotype shells for their own aggrandizement in the belief that Holotypes are valued far above market value, then why have main stream dealers not started publishing Holotype price lists? The reason is one of ethics. I believe most dealers understand the importance of working within a
(the) system. And the system in which the scientific community uses, the ICZN, states that Holotypes should be deposited in Museums or public institutions where they are accessible to current and future generations of researchers. That is why Holotypes and the first few Paratypes of newly published species are "almost" always deposited in scientific institutions and not in private collections. Of course, anyone can do as they please -- buy, sell or trade in scientifically important type material -- with impunity. But what are the chances that after a shell collection ripe with Holotypes is going to have a cash value in orders of magnitude? More than likely very little chance. I believe a serious collector would rather purchase a shell of exceptional size and/or quality irrespective if it is a type specimen. Type shells are typically more representational of a species rather than of superior quality. Is squirreling away Holotypes in a private collections anti-science? I guess that is for each of us to decide.

6/1/2007 - Bob Lipe (The Shell Store, St. Pete Beach, FL):

Dear group. My feelings in a nutshell. Holotypes should never be sold or bought. There should be a new Shell Law with teeth that says the Holotype should be put in a Museum etc. and a Paratype should go to another Museum in case the Holotype is lost. How can we look up a Holotype when it's in your home. Other Paratypes can be given away to people that are interested, and I guess they can be sold. If we don't straighten out our act we are lost.
I've only named one shell and guess where the types are? In two different Museums, and the other Paratype is in my collection.

5/31/2007 – Peter Krull:

Dick; Then, if a collector or dealer or any lay person names a form, what is the preferred method of labelling a shell for, say, a shell show? Should the author be the species or subspecies author or the form author, or both? Thanks, Pete

6/1/2007 - John Abba:

I wish to thank everybody that has given moments of their time, in reading my reply on Holotypes and Paratypes. It was really Bill Fenzan that asked me to clarify this.

Bill -- Thanks for the list, and link to the code at ICNZ.. Will try it as soon as I have the time. Am getting more information on this topic which I never had.

Marlo -- Thanks for the link for your site. I have added it onto "My Favorites" and will be into it more, in the coming days. However I did not notice the definition on "Topotypes and Hypotypes" as suggested in Bill's initial discussion, and also Fabio's " Sintypes "

Fabio -- Thanks for the information on stolen Holotypes. I have only heard of two, all these years, and the institution involved replaced the shells with a similar Hypotype shell. Yes, sort of kept mum on this

Regarding old papers, Holotypes, I have purchased always came with --- Location, Date found, A page or two of " Description, diagrams " plus a number, that’s similar to " Holotype Illustration or Illust. Code of the intuition, Number " plus author. Sure hope that are authentic.

Some but not all, papers were old but well preserved in plastic... The paper work is what’s worth the sentimental value to me, not really the shell.

I have always taken any seller's word for these Holotypes and, in my opinion, there is nothing to be gained from respected conchers selling fakes. Never have I checked with institutions either, on whether they are the Originals as Described.

And finally Richard, OK, (not really that old, as stated in your email, last night, but probably one of the best Terrestrial Conchologist in modern day times) However I was a little saddened by your reference that Holotypes should be kept in institutions, but, reluctantly have to agree. Holotypes should remain in institutions, and John Tucker, "No" I do not purchase them for re-sale value. Again it’s the sentimental value I am after, on collecting these.

6/1/2007 - John K. Tucker:

Just a quick correction. The word is "syntype" and to have one you must have two or more. A lectotype is by definition a former syntype and the other syntypes become paralectotypes. There are many sorts of "types" but the primary ones (holotype, paratype, syntype, lectotype, and paralectotype) are the only ones that carry nomenclatural importance. The others such as topotypes (a specimen collected at the original type locality and horizion if a fossil) are important from a systematic view. There is, by the way, a huge difference between nomenclature, systematics, and taxonomy. For those who are captivated by it, remember DNA is just another character. It is the only one where authors regularly get away with a sample size of one.

6/1/2007 - Eddy Wilmet:

I agree that Holo and Paratypes should be conserved in a Museum. I've only one burning question, in which museum? Are all museum equal? I don’t think so. Shouldn't there be some specific ruling appointing one or two specific museums in each country and not every single museum which pretends to have a malacological department? This would make malacological studies easier and prevent you from running around from one national museum to another (local, provincial or state-museum) in the same country.

Concerning buying or keeping the holo-para and other types, I think it's rather a trivial discussion. I've been extensively collecting for over 40 years one particular family and only came across 2 or 3 of these shells. My guess is that over 99,99% of the holo and paratypes are being kept in "a" museum. Any serious collector will donate his specimens to "a" museum.

I think collectors and scientists need to work together and show mutual respect which is often not the case.


6/1/2007 – John Abba:

Dear Eddy,

I did mention feeling bad in keeping the few I have, in my last email on this, and, Eddy, you do have a point. In which institution? Will everybody that has these Holotypes in their private collection give them up?? It does come to a huge number of specimens. Probably put it to the tens of thousands.

6/1/2007 - Dr. David Campbell (University of Alabama):

Several considerations go into selecting an appropriate institution to house type material. Is it stable and likely to continue to care for the material permanently? Is it readily accessible to researchers?
Are they equipped to deal with type material? Unfortunately, some seemingly secure institutions have later disappeared. Nevertheless, the preservation of institutional collections has historically been far better than the preservation of private collections.

Institutions that house type material are encouraged to publish catalogues so that the information is readily available.

Note that the designation of "type" categories is more tightly defined now than in the past, so material from an old collection labeled as some sort of type deserves careful investigation-it may or may not be of importance.

My type material is in the Smithsonian.

6/1/2007 - Art Weil:

Just a question: exactly WHO is the ICZN?

6/1/2007 – Dr. David Campbell (University of Alabama):

ICZN=International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. It is made up of taxonomic specialists from around the world who develop and update the rules and who vote on decisions where the rules are unclear or where an exception is needed. I think there're about 40 people on the commission, expert in various taxonomic groups.

6/1/2007 – Linda Bush:

Why should I give up my paratype of a recently named species, when the person who gave/sold them to the dealer was the museum professional who described the species?

/1/2007 - Paul Callomon (Collections Manager
Malacology, Invertebrate Paleontology and General Invertebrates Department of Malacology Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia PA):

There is nothing at all wrong with people keeping paratypes in their own collections. Remember that there is no limit on the number of paratypes you can select in an original description, so if you want to reward the people who got you the shell, your accountant, travel agent, whoever, then by all means add another paratype to the type series and give it to them. The more paratypes there are, the more material exists that can (usually) be used to identify that species by direct comparison.
Holotypes are another matter. The ICZN only 'recommends' that holotypes be placed in a suitable museum or other institution, so there is technically no bar to keeping them yourself or selling them. In the old days, indeed, dealers like Sowerby and Fulton used to sell primary types (syntypes, mainly) and mark them as such too, to put up the price. In those days, on the other hand, women couldn't vote, tigers were shot by the hundreds for fun and orphaned children were sent to factories at age eight, so just because something has been done in the past does not mean we should still be doing it now.
The main reason for urging anyone who describes a new species to place the holotype in a publicly-run institution is the hope that its whereabouts will thus still be known in a hundred years' time. Some little private museums keep collections of primary types, and to be fair some of them do as good a job of preserving them and making them available as any larger institution. Very few small private museums last beyond the lifetime of their founders, however. Then there are certain other private museums that are run by people with as scanty a knowledge of - and regard for - the conventions of science as some of the contributors to this forum. Sadly, these are usually the hardest people to persuade that they are doing anything wrong, and the first to take such suggestions personally.

6/1/2007 – Charlie Sturm, Jr. (Research Associate - Section of Mollusks Carnegie Museum of Natural History Pittsburgh, PA, USA):

I don't condone the sale of any type material. If it was up to me, all of it would be deposited in institutions that were able to care for it and make it available to those who needed to study it. Having said that, I am less concerned about paratypes being in private collections. Holotypes should be in institutional collections and I feel this should be an ICZN regulation.

At the Carnegie there is one lot of a unionid. There is the holotype and about 200 paratypes. In addition dozens of paratypes were sent to other institutions when this taxon was named. Thus you can see that the scientific impact of a few paratypes being in private hands would have little impact.

On the other have, I am currently working on two other taxa that I believe are not described. One is a single specimen. I have been working on this one for 17 years! I am still reviewing the literature to make sure that it has not been described. I'm getting close to finally submitting the paper. The other taxon was one that for which I had a single specimen. I recently received 3 more specimens. All of the specimens of these two taxa will be deposited in the Carnegie's collection. There are too few to keep in private hands.

6/1/2007 - Barry Roth:

If the museum professional was employed to work with the animal group in question and made a private sale, he or she would seem to be operating under a conflict of interest. The terms of employment of some museums prohibit their employees from maintaining private collections in their specialties.

6/1/2007 - John K. Tucker:

I agree with Paul that holotypes should be deposited in an institutional collection as a requirement for availability. The ICZN should require this and also should define what an institutional collection is and is not. It is not some cobbled up big name for some ones private collection just to give it an institutional look. It would not be all that difficult to come up with a listing of recognized type repositories and could be one exists now in the museum world. There is no doubt in my mind that the many faux institutions given for many of the descriptions of new species will cease to exist when the blush is off the rose. Many of the descriptions in the non-peer reviewed press make attempts to appear scientific but in my opinion these are pseudo-science. They are pale imitations of classic or modern malacological science.

It is also my opinion that description of new species by shell dealers is by definition a conflict of interest. It is simply a way to provide a name to market the shell under. These names are really scientific fluff and will die in due course. I am an old timer and these same things were happening in the 1970's and 1980's. I complained then about it in HSN print editions. It is as though the Sowerbys' ghosts are still with us. This is particularly a problem with groups that draw big prices such as Conus and Cypraea. I have no qualms about buying specimens and appreciate the efforts of dealers that I do business with. I draw the line when that dealer is naming things in private publications or in supposed journals of nearly no circulation. I understand it is easier to sell Conus eumitus for a big price than it is to sell something listed as a blue Conus textile but let someone else name it. Dealers finding new species should work with malacological specialists (Not me! I have never described a cone shell despite working with them for over thirty five years. I might someday, but only in the context of a larger study of many taxa from particular geographic areas). This might be frustrating but that is the way it is.

I think that anyone who takes the step to describe a new species should be confident enough of this to submit the work to a peer-reviewed journal. I do not mean one with an editorial board but one that uses outside anonymous review. If the paper is rejected maybe there is good reason and the revision will be much better. I have heard all of the complaints about peer review but would you like your new wonder drug to get approval based on a study submitted to the local health magazine? If it is good enough, it will publish. I should venture the opinion that fewer than 35% of the cone shell names published post-1990 actually represent distinct biological entities.

There also is a huge problem in collections (private and institutional) based on material assembled by collectors. These specimens never represent the actual populations from which they were drawn. There is always some underlying bias in what is collected and what is saved versus what is discarded. If you look at some species such as Conus anemone from southern Australia, collectors save the ones with high spires but leave those with the normal low spires. Thus, you get the idea that the high-spired form is typical for the region. It is not. In random samples more are similar in spire structure to C. anemone from elsewhere. The high-spired shells are actually teratogenic specimens. Similarly, trawlers bring up all the Brazilian cones but they are sorted and every less common color now has some foolish name. I would never believe these as valid without seeing a publication based on the shells just as the trawler collected them not as the dealer sorted them. Moreover, with few exceptions, you would be hard pressed to prove that these objects actually contained a snail at one time. One value of institutional collecting is that generally the collectors collect everything and everything ends up in the collections. This is almost never true of private collections or collections donated by private collectors to museums.

6/2/2007 – Marlo Krisberg (Merritt Island, FL):

John Abba wrote: "Marlo -- Thanks for the link for your site. I have added it onto " My Favourites " and will be into it more, in the coming days..However I did not notice the definition on "Topotypes and Hypotypes " as suggested in Bill's initial discussion, and also Fabio's " Sintypes. "

Reply:

I believe Fabio meant "Syntype."

Topotype - A specimen taken from the type locality.

Hypotype - A described or figured specimen used in a publication to extend or correct the knowledge of a previously defined species. A hypotype would be any images/descriptions published after the holotype, syntypes, lectotype, or neotype have been established, but does not replace them. Rather, hypotyes are later publications that serve to illustrate and provide further information about a species.

John, I've added these definitions to the terminology webpage for future reference.

​

                                                                                                                    Click here for page 3