Allotypes

[Doug Yanega]

>From: "Alfred F. Newton" <newton at FMPPR.FMNH.ORG>
>
>>From Doug Yanega on "allotypes":
>
>>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?
>
>     I don't see incongruities here because I don't see either naming
>"allotypes" or treating them as "primary" types in collections as standard
>practice.  Certainly the former is exceptional in the groups I work on, and
>is dying out.  And as Steve Shattuck indicated, segregating types in special
>collections is hardly standard either, and is not the case at the two large
>collections I have been associated with (MCZ and FMNH).  Here, specimens
>labeled "allotypes" are treated as paratypes in the collection and in the
>species-level database based on it, which means they are placed together
>with "primary" types in a separate tray next to the non-type specimens.  Are
>you suggesting that the Code be revised to bring it into line with practice
>at INHS, which apparently does not even have a copy of the present Code
>available to staff members?

Now, now, that's an unfair dig. I can only speak from personal experience,
and I have worked in at least three major collections where allotypes are
housed with the primary types (and the INHS, with 6 million specimens,
qualifies as a major collection - and some staff members DO have copies of
the Code, one of which I referred to before asking the original question).
As Thomas Pape points out, many collections are only *now* removing
allotypes from their type collections. The point is there are museums whose
collections are not "properly" segregated, and one can look at it from both
sides, as I suggested above - either the practice (however rare or common
it may be) is sound in principle and the rules can be reconsidered, or the
rules are sound in principle, and a lot of museums need to review their
policies. I posed the query originally to see how many people might feel
strongly one way or the other, and it's clear where you stand, certainly -
but there's certainly nothing wrong with asking a question about the status
quo, is there?

>> ... What is the potential headache in allowing an author a chance to
>>update their own species descriptions?
>
>     None at all, and it is done routinely by original authors (and others)
>in revisions.  But what is the point in allowing subsequent additions to the
>original type series by authors (or others)?  Any subsequently discovered
>specimens of special significance can still be described and distinctively
>labeled, as indicated by Barry O'Connor.

Again, I am *not* advocating allowing anyone but the original author such a
prerogative. I'm just wondering what genuine function is served by an
arbitrary time limit on when an author is allowed to designate types for
their own new species. If you have no objections to "distinctive labels",
why not allow them all to be paratypes, instead of creating a host of *new*
informal categories? We already have a common practice (at least
historically) of people other than the author putting labels on specimens
that read "compared with type", and that is all that such workers should be
entitled to.

> If the original type(s) were
>adequate to apply the name to a species, they are serving their purpose.
>Rewriting the rules to allow subsequent addition to the type series by
>anyone seems both unnecessary and liable to potential abuse.

I never said "anyone". THAT would allow for abuse. I'm just asking why the
original author shouldn't have the option to designate types in
publications subsequent to the original description. What sort of "abuse"
do you envision that would lead to? If you believe an original author isn't
trustworthy, why allow them to designate paratypes in the first place?
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