INTRODUCTION. 13 



Neotype. — Cossiiiann, in ])roposinj^ this term, gave it also two mean- 

 ings, which are siunmarized by Bnckman as follows: 



1. A species taken as the type of a j^enus of which no type was orijrinallv indicated, 

 while the s])ecies first mentioned by the author has been made tlie tv])e of anotlier 

 genus. 



2. A topoty])e fij^ured or described to represent a species of which the oris^inal 

 specimen [holf)type] has been lost or destroyed. 



The term is here ti.secl as redefnied l)y Cos.smann in 1904, on the basis 

 of his second meaning, as follows: 



Neotype for the specimen afterwards taken as the type of a species when the 

 original type [holotype] has been destroyed or has disappeared with the necessary 

 guaranty of its authenticity; but it seems indi.spensa1)le that the new specinRii should 

 come from the same locality and exact horizon. 



The writer wotild ii.se this term not onl\- as limited l)y Co.ssmann, but 

 would have it embrace all such subsequent specimens of a species as 

 become the standard for reference, owing to the original types being lost, 

 destroyed, or unrecognizable, or inadequate for the determination of the 

 specific characters. Among inv^ertebrate species neotypes will, as a rtile, 

 be restricted to Co.ssmann 's definition, but among vertebrates and plants 

 the term will be used for individuals more perfectly preserved than the 

 holotj'pes. 



In this connection a statement by Mar.sh " is appropriate: 



Among the invertebrates, especially those now living, types [=holotypes] are 

 usually complete enough to show the more important features. * * * Among 

 the vertebrates of the past the case is much more serious. * * A single tooth 



or a vertebra may be the first specimen brought to light in a new region, and thus 

 become the sole representative of a supposed new form. The next explorer may 

 find more perfect fragments of the same or similar forms, and add new names to the 

 category. A third investigator, with better opportunities and more knowledge, may 

 perhajjs secure entire skulls or even skeletons from the same horizon, and thus lay 

 a sure foundation for a knowledge of the fauna. 



It would .seem that any specific name l)ased on a fragment or part of 

 an organi.sm, even though it be but a single tooth, fragment of an 

 annnonite, or a leaf, should for all time, whether extant or not, be the 

 holotype of the species. In fact any .specific name must continue to rest 

 upon the originally .selected material, for otherwi.se nomenclature will 

 have no permanency. But in many ca.ses, and this is especialh- true of 

 such organisms as are built up of .separable parts, it seems advisaljle, when 

 the holotype is inadequate, to .select a .second type — -a neotype. The 

 neotype is of course a supplementary t\-pe, as it is not one of the original 

 or primary types. 



This term can be also applied to specimens, the import of which fact 

 was called to the writer's attention b}- Bather/' He a.sks: 



When the holotype and paratypes of a species have gone the way of all flesh; 

 when topotypes are impossible and metatypes unknown; when even its plastotypes 



a American Journal Science, VI, 1898, pp. 401, 402. b Science, May 28, 1897, p. 844, 



