<strong>Primary, secondary and tertiary syntypes and virtual lectotype designation in zoological nomenclature, with comments on the recent designation of a lectotype for <em>Elephas maximus</em> Linnaeus, 1758</strong>

Abstract

The role of primary, secondary and tertiary syntypes in solving nomenclatural problems, especially those related to old nomina from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, is discussed. The very useful but rarely implemented procedure of designating virtual lectotypes, i.e., specimens that can be traced as belonging to the original syntypic series but currently non-extant (e.g., lost, destroyed, misplaced, or originally being a live animal of which only an illustration remains), is here highlighted as potentially opening the way for a neotype designation that better suits stability in zoological nomenclature. This is particularly true when mixed syntypic series, i.e., those comprising specimens belonging to more than one species, are involved. We illustrate the advantages of this procedure by showing that a secondary syntype of Elephas maximus Linnaeus, 1758, although currently missing, would have been a better candidate to lectotype designation than the still available specimen actually selected recently as the lectotype of this species based on molecular data. We welcome the use of molecular data to solve nomenclatural problems, but point out that a thorough knowledge of the International Code of zoological Nomenclature is essential if the best decisions are to be taken.