Allotypes

[Doug Yanega]

>From: Curtis Clark <jcclark at csupomona.edu>
>
><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?

It was never *my* intent to imply this. To me it's more a matter of
information and/or specimen retrieval. When one sends away for a holotype
loan, does one *always* ask for "every identified specimen of this species
in the entire collection" or "every paratype in the collection"? No, not
always. In such cases, however, I think many people *would* want to see the
allotype, if any, and if it isn't kept together with the holotype, it may
be harder to retrieve (the person filling the loan request may not even be
aware the allotype is in their possession - very few museums have complete
databases). It's one of those "if/then" issues - IF the allotype is more
likely to be desired by a reviewer than any other paratype material, THEN
perhaps there is a purpose to be served by making it easier to retrieve.
That's all I'm saying...it's a matter of curatorial policy, though for some
folks, curatorial policy and the edicts of the Code are inseparable, and
that's where the conflict arises.
Sincerely,

Doug Yanega       Illinois Natural History Survey, 607 E. Peabody Dr.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA      phone (217) 244-6817, fax (217) 333-4949
 affiliate, Univ. of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Dept. of Entomology
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82