While we agree with Bouchet’s desire to select a museum voucher from which molecular data can be obtained, or for which such data have been obtained and deposited in GenBank, what is desirable in the designation of a neotype is not always possible. Museum specimens of Kalophrynus pleurostigma are rare in natural history collections. Currently, no sequences for Sumatran K. pleurostigma, which would be from the same island as the original holotype, are available in GenBank.
I have very strong reservations about replacing a syntype that does not fulfil its
function of name-bearing type by a neotype that may also not fulfil this function. As
stated by the authors, ‘during the past two decades, systematists have recognized that
multiple species are hidden under the name Kalophrynus pleurostigma’. Such a
situation clearly demands a neotype that is associated with molecular sequences. I
note that the proposed neotype (USNM 36645) was collected in 1905. It is likely that