Allotypes

[Curtis Clark]

At 11:29 AM 2/27/96 +0000, John Trueman wrote:
>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.

<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?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Clark        http://www.sci.csupomona.edu/biology/clark/clark.htm
Biological Sciences Department                     Voice: (909) 869-4062
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona    FAX:   (909) 869-4396
Pomona CA 91768-4032                               jcclark at csupomona.edu