INTRODUCTION. 13 



Neotype. — Cossmann, in proposing this term, gave it also two mean- 

 ings, which are summarized by Buckman as follows: 



1. A species taken as the type of a genus of which no type was originally indicated, 

 while the species first mentioned by the author has been made the type of another 

 genus. 



2. A topotype figured or described to represent a species of which the original 

 specimen [holotype] has been lost or destroyed. 



The term is here used as redefined by Cossmann 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 indispensable that the new specimen should 

 come from the same locality and exact horizon. 



The writer would use this term not only as limited by Cossmann, 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 invertebrate species neotypes will, as a rule, 

 be restricted to Cossmann' s definition, but among vertebrates and plants 

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

 holotypes. 



In this connection a statement by Marsh a 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 

 perhaps 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 based on a fragment or part of 

 an organism, even though it be but a single tooth, fragment of an 

 ammonite, 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 otherwise nomenclature will 

 have no permanency. But in many cases, and this is especially true of 

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

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

 neotype is of course a supplementary type, 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 by Bather. 5 He asks: 



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, 1S98, pp. 401, 402. b Science, May 28, 1897, p. 844, 



