allotypes again

[John Trueman]

Curtis Clark wrote:

><begin tongue-in-cheek> Let's take *all* the specimens with potential
>revisionary significance out of the main collection.  That would also
>include all the specimens that establish the variability of a species,
>since
>taxonomic decisions are in large part based on that.  And all those
>empty
>cabinets that used to be the main collection can now be used to house
>the
>"types". <end tongue-in-cheek>
>
>Seriously, are the regular collections of insects so bad that specimens
>are
>"relegated" to them?


To the last of which I would say:
Of course not.  But one main point of this thread seems to be 'Insofar
as types are treated differently from other specimens, and conventional
allotypes are treated as types, why not accord the same status to, eg,
the first-described adult (for species based on a juvenile holotype)'.

How far taxonomists should go, putting 'quasi'-type-labels on things, is
another matter.

John T