[log in to unmask]">Article 18.104.22.168: "For a nominal species or subspecies established before 2000, any evidence, published or unpublished, may be taken into account to determine what specimens constitute the type series"
I think you are adding opinion to the text. Let's look at this:
72.4.1. The type series of a nominal species-group taxon consists of all the specimens included by the author in the new nominal taxon (whether directly or by bibliographic reference), except any that the author expressly excludes from the type series [Art. 72.4.6], or refers to as distinct variants (e.g. by name, letter or number), or doubtfully attributes to the taxon.
Nowhere do I find support for your statement "but after 1999, to be included, the specimens involved must be explicitly listed and unambiguously identifiable based solely on what is written in the description." There is no qualification of "included" beyond that they are stated to be included.
Further, your statement: "'Paratypes: 30 females, 20 males, 20 larvae, various dates and localities' then none of these are actually paratypes, because there are no dates or localities or other identifying information given" is not supported. They are included as required by 72.4.1. In fact, even a holotype does not have to even have a date or locality to be valid. "A single unlabeled specimen found in a box in the back of the UCR collection is the only known representative of this species. It bears a Holotype label." Totally available.
I just keep looking, because disagreeing with you on Code is usually a losing stance, but I find no support for your statements.
-- Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's) http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82