Nathaniel F. Shoobs

The Ohio State University | OSU · Museum of Biological Diversity - Division of Mollusks & Crustaceans

Apologies for the confusing wording of the question.

To elaborate:

Smith describes a species, Aus bus Smith in 1875, and in his description, three things are clear:

1. there is only one specimen (that is, the specimen he describes is the holotype by monotypy),

2. Smith, not the most prodigious of scholars, only describes part of the animal, and his description is not sufficiently detailed to allow for identification between sister species, and

3. his good friend Jones, a talented anatomist, has  generously illustrated the anatomy of the new Aus bus Smith in a separate paper, from the same monotypic holotype specimen. This illustration is of a different part than Smith described (soft parts vs hard parts, for example). 

To make matters worse for recent authors,  exhaustive searching has yielded no parts of the holotype among the former collections of either taxonomist. Because it was a description of a monotypic specimen, there is no other contemporary material that can be referred to for reference, and contemporary workers of Jones and Smith expressed confusion with the name.

Recently collected topotypic material is clearly different from Jones' excellent illustrations, but Smith's poor description and lack of illustration makes it impossible to be sure of an ID. 

To repeat the principal question: is the fact that there was mutual acknowledgement that the illustrations of Jones were made from the holotype, can Jones' illustrations be used to solidify the concept of the name with comparisons to modern material in the absence of type material?

Do Articles 73.1.2  and 73.1.3 apply in this case? Furthermore, following Article 73.1.2, if it was possible for an author to designate an illustration is a holotype, could an illustration be lectotypified by a later worker? (Understanding that such illustrations are verifiably illustrations of the holotype).

I am writing my undergraduate thesis as a taxonomic monograph. What is the best way to treat undescribed taxa, previously unpublished synonymies, or any other taxonomic acts in an undergraduate thesis? Is it best to use n.sp abbreviations and to wait until formal publication to fully describe new taxa?

The thesis will technically be available via a university digital commons, and a non-circulating but publically accessible physical copy will also remain in the library of my college. I also plan on scientifically publishing the monograph after I graduate. 

Any advice or technicalities to be aware of would be greatly appreciated. 

Here's a question for the ICZN buffs out there:

If a species is described from a whole specimen that is split into separate museum lots, is the holotype both of the lots, or just one?

For example: I describe a novel species of snail from a specimen, and the description includes a description of the shell, the soft parts, and the radular anatomy. When depositing the specimen, I separate the shell and it gets a dry catalogue number. I separate the radula as well and it gets a separate catalogue number. The soft tissues get their own number and go into the wet collection. Are all of these lots still the holotype? Are they syntypes? They are all parts of the same organism but are obviously separate museum objects if they are prepared this way. 

Best, 

Nate