Allotypes

[John Trueman]

Re Doug Yanega's questions:

The central issue, it seems, is to ask  "what specimens other than the
holotype deserve special treatment?"  Paratypes, yes.  The allotype
(=one designated paratype of opposite sex), yes.  Neotypes, etc, yes.
Beyond that - what about a specimen of opposite sex, not being a
paratype, first associated with the holotype (even if by a different
author)?  That specimen surely has potential revisionary significance
and does not deserve to be relegated to the regular collection.

I would go further. What currently applies to 'allotypes' could, and
should, be applied to significant specimens of different life stages --
eg, larval 'allotypes' for insects first described from the adult, and
adult 'allotypes' for those first described from larvae.  It regularly
happens that good evidence connecting larva with adult (eg,from captive
rearing) comes some time after the initial description was made (and
perhaps by a different author).  The specimens which give rise to these
links have potential revisionary importance beyond that of ordinary
specimens, and deserve to be appropriately labelled and curated in a way
which makes them readily available for later study.

John Trueman