Oh, I know that
you don't get confused just because the clerical assistants who worked on the catalogues often use the same phrases for motifs that are different. Beginners, however, new to both classics and archaeology and
numismatics do get confused and, by the magic of cut-and-paste, manage to confuse others.
There are very few instances where the identity of an obvious statue is as unambiguous as it is on the Parion
Eros and on the
Philippopolis Lysippic
Eros.
So when there is a
good chance that someone will get lost (usually by failing to re-read the whole
thread straight through), I think that the "
Type" problem may well be raised again.
As for the 'props': on the full-size replicas and variants of assorted Aphrodites and Apollos it seems that different
ateliers in different periods preferred one prop or another—literally props to
help support the body on thin legs and to balance it. The "Medici" Aphrodite usually has a
dolphin, but almost any Aphrodite
may have one, for example. A herm is an unusual support for an
Eros, common for
Hermes, so we take it seriously when it occurs consistently on the Parion coins. Sometimes, when an external support has no particular meaning to the subject, the die engraver has the common sense to omit it. Naturally, on the other hand, when a
lizard needs a tree-trunk and the boy
Apollo looks unbalanced without it, too, it is not omitted. Most
statues, however, don't have so much narrative content as that one.
Pat L.
P.S. I ought to have made clear that the word itself, 'type', remains perfectly proper in its original use, where it is exact for an image struck from a die. But when its extended use, for a
replica derived from a known original, or an image with traits to which the same descriptive phrase applies, occur within discussion, clarification is needed.