I have read Jim Blake's correspondance about types and localities with
interest. It highlights an important change in our perception about
species distributions. One of the orginal reason for a type locality was
that anyone could then go back to that locality and collect samples of the
species. It fixed the locality in space. However, in marine systems
species tend to be widespread and variable in occurrence in time and space
so the type locality has less relevance. So how should we view the idea of
a type locality, which under the ICZN rules of nomenclature, is
considered to be a necessary/ highly desirable part of the information
about a species?
Personally, I view it as a locality where a group of specimens of the
species were originally collected, to be considered in the context of the
overall distribution of the species. A further point about type localities
is that if you nominate syntypes, instead of a holotype, from a across the
biogeographic range it gets away from the problems of fixating on a type
locality.
Finally, the Commission is about to produce a new edition of the
rules of nomenclature and would like to hear from anyone who has views on
the current rules. There is a draft available for comment (they would be
grateful for contributions of 3 pounds sterling or 5 US dollars to cover
postage costs, etc.).
The contact is :Dr Philip Tubbs
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
The Natural History Museum
London SW7 5BD
e-mail: pkt at nhm.ac.uk
The consultation process will last until May 1996 with the new rules taking
effect in 1997.
Gordon L J Paterson
Dept. of Zoology
tel: +44 (0)171 938 9414; Fax:+44 (0)171 938 9158
(drop the zero outside the UK)
E-mail: gljp at nhm.ac.uk
