Allotypes

[Doug Yanega]

To start a new thread of a more "relevant" nature (note that it is
crossposted to both Taxacom and ICZN-4, in case the discussion goes
anywhere, but folks may have to manually enter both lists in order to reply
to both), I was recently puzzling over some of the nuances of different
type designations, as I sat here describing some new genera, and I had a
few questions as to the philosophy behind some of it, and what I see as
possibly self-contradictory policies in the present system. There are two
things I find puzzling, and allotypes figure in both:
(1) Paratypes are not considered primary types, because there is obviously
no *guarantee* that they are conspecific with the holotype - this is only
the opinion of the original author, and they could be mistaken. Why, then,
is the allotype considered a "primary type", given that the same exact
assumption is being made - with an even *lower* probability of the
assumption being correct (since it isn't even the same *sex* as the
holotype)? The allotype is really nothing more than a paratype of the
opposite sex of the holotype, so why do these specimens receive special
status and treatment? Not that I'm complaining, it just strikes me as a
double-standard. I do think most folks agree that an allotype serves a
useful purpose, after all, no?
(2) Suppose I describe species _Aus xus_ from a single female. Later, after
this is published, I discover the male of the species. Technically, I'm out
of luck - since the original publication is a fait accompli, I cannot
designate the male as an allotype, or even a paratype - so despite its
tremendous significance as the only existing specimen of the opposite sex
of the species, it is relegated to being housed in the regular collection.
Yet, if I don't *admit* that I know it's the male of _Aus xus_, I can
describe it as the holotype of _Aus yus_, and then come out with a second
publication saying "WHOOPS! It's a synonym!"...in which case it is now
officially a holotype, permanently housed in the type collection, and
listed in the type catalog. After all, it is now a name-bearing type, even
though the name is a junior synonym. This also has the added benefit of
giving a name to use in case it does turn out that I'm wrong, and the male
does not belong with _xus_ after all. While I am not suggesting that anyone
do this, it is certainly within the rules. Which, of course, makes me
wonder about the rules...
        So, my question is sort of a "one-two punch" - if folks agree that
in principle the allotype is truly deserving of special status, then they
should have no objections to an author doing anything "legal" to see to it
that an allotype is designated. The bottom line that I'm trying to lead to
here is this: it seems to me that either the philosophical goals being
served by the present rules are flawed, or the present rules do not
*efficiently* serve those goals. What I would like to suggest is that in
light of the fact that both allotype and paratype designations are solely
at the discretion of the describing authority to *begin* with, that things
would be simplified if the original author were empowered to designate an
allotype and/or paratypes at any point after the original publication.
("HERESY!" the audience cries!). Well, clearly, it isn't really heresy,
because one *can* effectively designate an allotype by the roundabout
method above, even if one is NOT the original author, and it is in fact not
all that uncommon to have species whose opposite sexes were described
separately synonymized later...just not intentionally, of course. Would
taxonomy suffer tremendously if such a modification of the rules were put
into effect?
        <biased personal opinions on> I tend to think quite the opposite,
presuming one views the opinion of the original author as having some
merit, and that allotypes and paratypes have some real utility. Moreover,
even if one feels that such secondary types are only of limited value, what
then could be the harm of allowing the original author to designate them at
will? (as long as they are willing to publish the designations, of course -
I am not advocating that folks should just be allowed to put on type labels
and not *tell* anyone). I know people who virtually *refuse* to describe a
new species until they have a large series of both sexes, explicitly so
there can be sufficient type material. If these folks knew that they had
the option of designating type material later on, then a lot of undescribed
material which has been accumulating on their desks could finally get into
the literature. Myself, I think we're in a race against time here, trying
to get things named before alpha systematists (or the species we're
describing) vanish from the Earth, and anything which could streamline
things without sacrificing rigor is a good thing. If we're willing to trust
an author to designate types, it shouldn't matter when they designate them.
<biased personal opinions off>
Sincerely,

Doug Yanega       Illinois Natural History Survey, 607 E. Peabody Dr.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA      phone (217) 244-6817, fax (217) 333-4949
 affiliate, Univ. of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Dept. of Entomology
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82