Allotypes

[Alfred F. Newton]

>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?

> ... 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.  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.

Alfred F. Newton  (newton at fmnh.org)
Field Museum of Natural History - Zoology, Insects
Chicago, IL 60605 USA
     tel. 312-922-9410 ext. 263;  fax 312-663-5397