Allotypes

[Vladimir I. Gusarov]

On 26 February 1996 Doug Yanega wrote:

>(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?

     I agree that the allotype is nothing more than a paratype of  the
opposite sex of the holotype.  Suppose however one has several paraty-
pes of the opposite sex of the  holotype.  That  those  paratypes  are
conspecific with the holotype - this is only the opinion of the origi-
nal auther.  However the author might consider some of those paratypes
more likely than the other paratypes to be conspecific with the holotype.
Then why not chose the allotype from the first group of paratypes
and  express  the  opinion which could be interesting to other specia-
lists in the group?

>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.

     But what is wrong with being housed in the regular collection?  A
specimen  which  came from an isolated or vanished locality;  specimen
which is slightly different from the majority of  specimens;  specimen
collected in a particular year - any of them could be more valuable for some-
body than one of the paratypes.  So all collected specimens should  be
kept properly.

>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?

     An opportunity to chose the allotype  (or  paratypes)  after  the
original  publication as it is proposed here would constitute the opi-
nion (not necessarily correct, even if it is expressed by the original
author) of the person who does this choice. As the paratypes original-
ly included in the type series also only express the opinion,  so what
is  the  diffirence between two generations of the paratypes?  I think
what is important that is original description  and  the  new  species
concept having been based on *all* specimens originally included in the
type series
(Imagine type series including specimens from different islands or mo-
untains).  That is why all original specimens (paratypes) are interes-
ting and important. Considering some other specimens to be conspecific
with the original type series after the description is published would
constitute subsequent interpretation of the original species  concept.
Why mix different interpretations?

Sincerly,

Vladimir Gusarov
_____________________________________________________

Vladimir Gusarov                           \\ /
                                        OOOOOOO-OC
vlad at euphr.stud.pu.ru                      // \
_____________________________________________________