Monitor kordensis Meyer, 1874

Böhme, Wolfgang & Koch, André, 2010, On the type selection and re-typification of two monitor lizard taxa (Squamata: Varanidae): Monitor bivittatus celebensis Schlegel, 1844 and Monitor kordensis Meyer, 1874; with some comments and corrections on other name-bearing type specimens, Zootaxa 2440, pp. 60-68 : 62

2. Monitor kordensis Meyer, 1874

This taxon was described by Meyer (1874) based on a regular name-bearing type specimen from Biak Island (formerly Kordo), Papua, Indonesia, which was deposited at MTKD, but destroyed during the big bombing of Dresden towards the end of World War II ( Obst 1977). Here, De Lisle (2009) cited two authors (Robert Sprackland, Hans Jacobs) with differing opinions on the taxonomic status of this taxon (color morph vs. species). And because both did not have access to the (destroyed) holotype (what they not at all intended to have), De Lisle (2009) again felt "that it seems prudent to designate a new type from the original location in this catalog". He selected RMNH 21009 from Biak the neotype.

In this case, the disagreement with the CODE (IZCN 1999) is much more serious than with the unfounded “ lectotype ” designation discussed above. Art. 75.2. ("Circumstances excluded") clearly states: "A neotype is not to be designated as an end in itself, .... and any such neotype designation is invalid". Art. 75.3. ("Qualifying conditions") states: "A neotype is validly designated when there is an exceptional need and only when that need is stated expressly and when the designation is published with the following particulars: 75.3.1. a statement that it is designated with the express purpose of clarifying the taxonomic status .... of nominal taxon". This means clearly original taxonomic, revisionary work and not the compilation of a familywide checklist. The other qualifying conditions (75.3.2.-75.3.7.) are largely followed; except 75.3.4. where "the author's reasons for believing the name-bearing type to be lost or destroyed, and the steps that have been taken to trace it", are requested. Here, no information is provided which would have easily been possible by citing from the Dresden type catalogue ( Obst 1977) where details about the fate of the MTKD collection can be found.

Also Recommendation 75B of the CODE was obviously ignored by De Lisle (2009): "Before designating a neotype, an author should be satisfied that the proposed designation does not arouse serious objection from other specialists of the group in question". He published this designation "as an end in itself" within his checklist, despite our repeated trial to dissuade from this action. We therefore regard this neotype designation as invalid.