6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. I28 



date, but too often they are forgotten completely and eventually lost. 

 Even such a pioneer systematist as d'Orbigny, having kept his types 

 in a personal collection, was unable to prevent the loss of many. After 

 his death the types that were located were sent to the Museum 

 National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris, but only about one-third were 

 thus preserved, the remainder having been lost or destroyed. Types 

 can always be consulted again if deposited in a reliable institution. 



Most museums have time after time received from authors types 

 that were only partially labeled, perhaps in pencil, or even com- 

 pletely without labels. In some instances numerous specimens may be 

 on a single slide with no indication as to which is the type or which 

 have been figured. The curators in charge must then spend many days 

 attempting to identify the types and label them properly, but we have 

 seen instances in some institutions where many years after publication 

 the "types" remain unlabeled and can be recognized only by their 

 authors. In some instances genera have been based on species whose 

 types, thus kept, cannot now even be identified. 



Sometimes more than one specimen is present on a slide with no 

 indication as to which is the type, or the author may have designated 

 many cotypes rather than a holotype and paratypes. In this case a 

 succeeding worker may select one of these specimens as lectotype, 

 which takes the place of a holotype, thus delimiting exactly the species. 

 We have done this in many instances — for example, in the d'Orbigny 

 collection. The original d'Orbigny slides sometimes contained more 

 than one species as they are now understood, and often more than one 

 genus as well. Then the specimens selected as lectotype must deter- 

 mine the entire character of the genus, regardless of original descrip- 

 tions or later understanding of the genus. When selecting lectotypes 

 we have invariably attempted to locate the specimen figured by the 

 author and that most clearly corresponding to his description. We 

 have also in each instance noted on the slide that the specimen has been 

 designated as lectotype for the aid of later workers. 



It is far preferable, however, that the original authors definitely 

 select the holotype for the new species, and furthermore that they so 

 label their preparations that no doubt can remain. Not only should 

 the specimen be labeled as to name and author and what sort of type, 

 but also more exact locality data should be given so that future workers 

 would be able to obtain topotype material. As many types have been 

 lost through the years, it has been necessary to search for additional 

 material from the original locality in order to determine the characters 

 of the species. It is much easier to obtain authentic material from 



