Talk:Holotype

message: Perhaps reference to the official definitions will be more clear about this - but there is a subtle difference betweeen how a neotype is defined in this article and how it is defined in biological types - Marshman 20:33, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: As this is phrased to cover more than one Code of nomenclature, this  remains a nightmare, full of confusing weasel words. It really should be split. Brya 08:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: confusing 

message: Wouldn't this info be better off if merged with type specimen? FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Isotype redirects here, but it isn't mentioned anywhere. Can someone add something or otherwise remove the redirect? Jalwikip (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  isotype 

message: I'm confused about the definition. These statements are made:
:a) A holotype is an example known to have been used when the species (or lower-ranked taxon) was formally described.
:b) A holotype is not necessarily "typical" of that taxon, although ideally it should be.
Is it also true that a holotype is not necessarily typical of the species?
:c) Even if a better specimen is subsequently found, the holotype is not superseded.
:d) A holotype can be superseded if it turns out to lack important diagnostic features.
Statements c and d contradict.
:e) Above, in section "human", editor Dyanega states that there is no need for a holotype, for example when "no one is confused about their identity".
It's difficult to tell what's going on. Are holotypes necessary or not? Can the specimens be changed or not? Can someone, for example, decide to create a holotype to anticipate a future need? Leptus Froggi (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion over definition 

message: Page watchers are invited to weigh in at the discussion at Talk:Carl Linnaeus#Type specimen regarding the type specimen of H. sapiens. Umimmak (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linnaeus as type specimen for H. sapiens 

message: the first paragraph says a holotype can be one thing or one of many parts of things, and later the article says like a dinosaur leg fossil can be a holotype, and in this instance, since holotype is so limited, neotypes and other types can be established for research. so was the dinosaur leg just part of that whole dino's body, and the parts were all found in the same place at the same time, and the leg was the best preserved of all the parts found and chosen as the holotype for that reason?
and then on the last or second last paragraph, it says a holotype can be an individual (article uses noun usage of the word 'individual' incorrectly to describe a creature also here), living creature, and that holotypes can be lost for this reason (if the creature is left and lost in the wild for instance). I can only imagine that living creature in this case would.be designated the holotype because it was the first instance.of that creatures discovery? right?
if im right, the "first" discovery aspect of what a holotype is should be elaborated on a little. if im wrong, this article makes very little sense at all. 2600:1700:DF50:A1F0:D95F:DBDA:BF23:39E1 (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  so a holotype is the first recorded discovery of something, whether it's dead or alive.