Jorge Soberon asked for comments on this statement:

First, I hope everyone notices that we are specifically discussing the country of Mexico. Hence, derogatory comments about some unnamed country will only send us back to the name-calling and finger-pointing that accompanied this same topic a few weeks ago.

Second, note that the requirement is only for deposition of "part of the type material." I interpret this to mean that, if the investigator so desired, paratype(s) would be sufficient. In my opinion this is entirely reasonable, and I would have no qualms if it were extended to say that if the holotype is designated from said material, it too is to be deposited in a Mexican institution.

It seems to me that the important point of such regulations is to ensure that some authoritatively identified specimens of species X be deposited in-country. I view primary types to be of very restricted nomenclatural value, most certainly not to be used for purposes of everyday identification. If all countries adopt regulations requiring deposition of holotypes in a national institution, then this means that the present-day "type rich" collections are just about as rich as they'll ever be. Maybe then, we can evaluate the quality and value of collections on the basis of the uses (scientific and otherwise) to which their holdings may be put, rather than on a mere head count of types.

Norm Johnson