Allotypes

[Alfred F. Newton]

     On 26 Feb. 1996, Doug Yanega raised several points concerning
"allotypes", and here are comments on 2 of them:

1) "... Why, then, is the allotype considered a "primary type" ..."?
     See Art. 72a of the current Code (1985):  "name-bearing types"
(commonly referred to as "primary types", a term not used in the Code)
include holotype, lectotype, neotype and syntype series.  These are
distinguished from "paratypes, paralectotypes, ..." to which an "allotype"
(another term not regulated by the Code) would be referred (Rec. 72A).
Thus, "allotype" has no special status according to the rules, for reasons
similar to those you cited for paratypes.

2) You suggest allowing an author to add to the type series after the name
is published, if he/she later recognizes an "allotype" or other specimens
that would add to our understanding of the species.  One big problem with
this one is, where does one stop?  Why not allow any other author to add to
the type series for the same good reasons?  Then, how would we stop any
author from building up a personal "type" collection for his/her own group?
I don't see that the present Code-sanctioned system of "types" is
problematic enough to start all over with a new one and a new set of
potential headaches.  As for deliberately naming a synonym so a specimen of
the opposite sex that turns up later can become a "primary" type and go into
your type collection, ... (oh, never mind!).

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