Paleonet: two parts of holotype [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[John.Laurie at ga.gov.au]

Strewth, here we go again!

 

Finlay would probably have a case for slander if he was still kicking. The
fact that he named two specimens the holotype and another a paratype should
convince people that the LV and RV listed as the holotype were from the same
individual, despite Finlay not enunciating that in print. Perhaps he did not
think he needed to do so. If you need further proof, then, as I said before,
if these two valves articulate and their commissures align, one can be fairly
certain they belong to the same individual and that individual should be
confirmed as the holotype. Why not e-mail the relevant collecting institution
to see if this is possible?

 

Rather than me flogging a dead horse, you should check out the PaleoNet
archives for previous discussions on this topic from late August-early
September, 2007. These should clearly demonstrate that the term holotype
should be applied to an individual organism, not a part thereof.

 

John

----------------------------------------------------------------- 
Dr John R. Laurie 

Petroleum and Marine Division 

GEOSCIENCE AUSTRALIA 
GPO Box 378         
Canberra ACT 2601       
Australia 
              
Tel: (02) 6249 9412; Fax: (02) 6249 9980 
E-mail: John.Laurie at ga.gov.au 

Street Address: 
Cnr Jerrabomberra Avenue & Hindmarsh Drive 
Symonston ACT 2609 

ABN 80 091 799 039 
----------------------------------------------------------------

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.nhm.ac.uk/pipermail/paleonet/attachments/20080211/d18f2597/attachment-0001.htm