Allotypes

[Doug Yanega]

>     On 26 Feb. 1996, Doug Yanega raised several points concerning
>"allotypes", and here are comments on 2 of them:
>
>1) "... Why, then, is the allotype considered a "primary type" ..."?
>     See Art. 72a of the current Code (1985):  "name-bearing types"
>(commonly referred to as "primary types", a term not used in the Code)
>include holotype, lectotype, neotype and syntype series.  These are
>distinguished from "paratypes, paralectotypes, ..." to which an "allotype"
>(another term not regulated by the Code) would be referred (Rec. 72A).
>Thus, "allotype" has no special status according to the rules, for reasons
>similar to those you cited for paratypes.

These are nonetheless matters of practice, even though not explicitly
treated by the Code - allotypes are housed in the type collections, with
red labels like holotypes, and are pretty much *treated* like holotypes
despite the fact that technically they are not accorded such status. I take
this as evidence that folks DO think allotypes deserve special treatment.
That was my point - what we *do* and what the rules state are not entirely
congruent here. We should presumably either yank all of those allotypes out
of our type collections, or revise the pertinent section of the Code to
bring it into line with practice. Do you not see any incongruities here?

>2) You suggest allowing an author to add to the type series after the name
>is published, if he/she later recognizes an "allotype" or other specimens
>that would add to our understanding of the species.  One big problem with
>this one is, where does one stop?  Why not allow any other author to add to
>the type series for the same good reasons?

I already stated that I felt only the original author was entitled to such
designations. If you don't believe the person who described a species is
capable of objectively recognizing other specimens which are conspecific,
then we should not allow allotypes or paratypes to be designated at all,
should we? That's what I meant by a double-standard sort of thing - if
their opinion is good enough to be "official" in 1979 when they described a
thing, why is their opinion any less "official" if they discover the
missing sex 2 or 5 or 10 years later? Where one stops is with the original
author!! Then the following issue is a non-problem:

>Then, how would we stop any
>author from building up a personal "type" collection for his/her own group?

No one pays special attention to paratypes, so if the original author
really wants to bother writing up a separate publication to designate a
pile of them, that's their prerogative (it's their time and expense for
relatively little gain, then) - on the other hand, if the opposite sex of a
new taxon hasn't yet been described, then it should be published *anyway*,
and given that, why not allow them to designate an allotype in the process?

>I don't see that the present Code-sanctioned system of "types" is
>problematic enough to start all over with a new one and a new set of
>potential headaches.

As long as one limits type designations to the original author, I see this
as possibly alleviating more headaches than it could possibly cause -
assuming, again, that one believes allotypes and paratypes have some
utility. What is the potential headache in allowing an author a chance to
update their own species descriptions?
        As for the deliberate synonymy scenario, it was *intended* to be
seen as ludicrous.
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