Choosing the Type Locality of a Species

View at publisher
Authors: Valter M. Azevedo‐Santos, Pedro L. C. Uzeda, Wilson J. E. M. Costa, Axel Makay Katz, Felipe Polivanov Ottoni
Cited by: 2
References: 4

Abstract

We biologists, upon discovering a new species or subspecies, must choose and designate one or a group of specimens to fix (i.e., establish) the name. This specimen, called the holotype, or the group, known as the syntypes (currently less frequently used), constitute the name-bearing types (e.g., ICZN 1999) that serve as reference for new comparisons and descriptions of congeneric species, as well as anchors when taxonomic arrangements are proposed. In turn, the place where these specimens were captured is known by biologists as the type locality. Recently, Azevedo-Santos and Ottoni (2025) demonstrated the importance of conserving type localities, because they are home to specimens sharing the same genetic pool as the name-bearing types. The aforementioned article provided an opportunity to start a discussion with colleagues about choosing the type locality when describing a new species for science. This perspective is provided here. The type locality is established as a direct consequence of the type designation. The choice of the name-bearing type by taxonomists, however, may be done considering both the specimen and type locality. In the case of holotypes (currently more frequently designated), it is common for researchers to select the most representative or well-preserved (or both) specimen of the series, and, consequently, the locality where it was collected becomes the type locality. Some colleagues, in addition, consider the specimens from places with easy access to the collection as additional criteria to choose the holotype. In numerous cases, for instance, the type locality is in an environment immediately adjacent to a road or research station. In others, the selection also considers the physical safety of researchers reaching the sampled locality (e.g., regions free of armed conflict). These additional criteria are also legitimate, because they will optimize access in the future for themselves, or other scientists, to capture more specimens (subsequently called “topotypes”) to be used in studies.

Fields of Study & Subjects

Morphological variations and asymmetry Scarabaeidae Beetle Taxonomy and Biogeography Species Distribution and Climate Change

Publication details

Journal / source
BioScience
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Volume
76
Issue
8
Pages
669–670
Publication date
30 January 2026
Language
EN