You DON'T specifically need paratypes! All you need is another specimen (any) which is demonstrably of the relevant taxon. Perhaps that's what you meant, but then it's a good idea to use correct terminology.
Since paratype is defined as any specimen of the type series other than the Holotype, I am curious to see where the imagined terminology error occurs.
Then you continue with:
"All you need is another specimen (any) which is demonstrably of the relevant taxon."
How would you propose to do that?
From ICZN:
72.4.5. When an author designates a holotype [Art. 73.1], then the other specimens of the type series are paratypes. The latter do not become syntypes and cannot be used for lectotype selection [Art. 74] if the holotype is lost or destroyed; however, they are eligible for neotype selection (see Recommendation 75A).
I think your original argument was based on:
72.4.1.1. For a nominal species or subspecies established before 2000, any evidence, published or unpublished, may be taken into account to determine what specimens constitute the type series.
Which again comes back to the same problem, and to make it clear I know hardly anything about whales or anything similar, but I do remember something about the arguments with splitting in the toothed whales being very contentious. Making it worse with my assumptions on Soviet era access to materials (why I asked) - and just the difficulties of scientific communication at the time.
So the question comes right back to what the available evidence is and only the experts in the field would be qualified to debate that aspect.
I am also curious what you mean by (any) other specimen? Afterall one must get the terminology correct...
72.4.6. If an author when establishing a nominal species-group taxon nominates either "syntypes" (by that term, or by use of one of the terms "cotypes" or "types" alone), or "holotype and paratypes" used together (or by use of the term "type" together with "allotype" or "cotypes"), and also lists other specimens, the separate mention of the latter expressly excludes them from the type series.
By which I assume your meaning ... Lectotype?
So briefly my take on the situation, where I admit I may be completely wrong.
The Russians create a type series on some killer whale they think is a new species. That is comprised of a Holotype and Paratypes. Other type series may have been created and distributed at the time - Syntypes. From the Syntypes Lectotypes could be designated. In the case I mentioned where all Paratypes are lost - and to be specific Holotypes and Lectotypes. Then where possible a new neotype can be created, see section 75.
Quickly though I would draw your attention to:
Recommendation 75A. Choice of neotypes. Authors are advised to choose neotypes from any surviving paratypes or paralectotypes unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, such as data inadequate to meet taxonomic requirements, the poor condition of the specimens, or probable mixture of taxa. All things being equal, topotypic specimens (see Glossary) from the type series should be given preference.
Anyway I am not a lawyer and have better things to do than argue ICZN rules and freshman zoology terminology.
Scott.
