BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="l_raty" data-source="post: 3584824" data-attributes="member: 24811">OK. That may make this an interesting test case, then: what happens when some disagree very strongly with a published neotype designation?(If [you are convinced that] the original type locality is the Vogelkop, and the authors deliberately designated a neotype from the Kobowre Mountains, it seems obvious that [for you] they failed to provide "evidence that the neotype came as nearly as practicable from the original type locality", which is a sine qua non condition to have a valid neotype designation (see [<a href="http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?article=75&nfv=#3" target="_blank">Art.75.3.6</a>]). Note that the Code calls for evidence here, not "just" for the author's reasons to believe that it was the case--compare with the wording of 75.3.4. Thus [for you at least], the requirement of 75.3.6 is arguably not met, which means that the designation is invalid, the designated neotype is not a neotype, and the type locality is still the locality of collection of the original holotype.)</blockquote>