Allotypes

[Doug Yanega]

>From: "Vladimir I. Gusarov" <vlad at euphr.stud.pu.ru>
>Organization: St. Petersburg University, Dept. of Botany
>
>On 26 February 1996 Doug Yanega wrote:
>
[snip]
>>2) Suppose I describe species _Aus xus_ from a single female. Later, after
>>this is published, I discover the male of the species. Technically, I'm out
>>of luck - since the original publication is a fait accompli, I cannot
>>designate the male as an allotype, or even a paratype - so despite its
>>tremendous significance as the only existing specimen of the opposite sex
>>of the species, it is relegated to being housed in the regular collection.
>
>     But what is wrong with being housed in the regular collection?

To reiterate, it's a matter of information and specimen retrieval. Very few
institutions make lists of every specimen in the regular collection, so it
would be easily lost track of there, despite the fact that it might be more
useful to a reviewer than an ordinary paratype. There are many older
taxonomic works that do not list type depositories, and if there is ever a
need to examine an allotype of such a species, it may be quite hard to
locate if it is not catalogued or databased. A number of private responses
my question has elicited have suggested that I must be the only person who
has ever encountered a large series of specimens, all of one sex, which
happen to be the *opposite* sex of the holotypes of the possible
alternative species...I can't believe no one else has ever found
themseleves in this situation when trying to make an identification. This
is a case where, without allotypes, one cannot say with any degree of
confidence whether that series belongs to a described or undescribed
species. In such cases, it is helpful if one can *locate* allotypes easily.
If all you ever examine types for is as part of full-scale revisionary
work, I can understand that this would seem meaningless to you, but when
you're examining types solely to make an accurate identification, the
allotype, by itself, *can* be particularly important.

>     An opportunity to chose the allotype  (or  paratypes)  after  the
>original  publication as it is proposed here would constitute the opi-
>nion (not necessarily correct, even if it is expressed by the original
>author) of the person who does this choice. As the paratypes original-
>ly included in the type series also only express the opinion,  so what
>is  the  diffirence between two generations of the paratypes?

Exactly my question.

>I think
>what is important that is original description  and  the  new  species
>concept having been based on *all* specimens originally included in the
>type series
>(Imagine type series including specimens from different islands or mo-
>untains).  That is why all original specimens (paratypes) are interes-
>ting and important. Considering some other specimens to be conspecific
>with the original type series after the description is published would
>constitute subsequent interpretation of the original species  concept.
>Why mix different interpretations?

Presuming there was a "type series", I would essentially agree!! I never
suggested this would be necessary if a type series of both sexes already
existed! But what if there was only the holotype? Then there would, for one
thing, be no material from which a neotype could be properly designated if
that holotype is destroyed (since nothing else was "on hand" when the
original description was made). What I've been driving at is what one does
when there is NOT an adequate type series when one first describes a
species, but one later finds such material. Rather than try to draw some
completely arbitrary number of paratypes (as a cutoff for when delayed
designation is/isn't allowable), a more logical approach would be to give
the original author the prerogative to designate paratypes at any time IN
CASE the author finds it necessary. If there was already a sufficent type
series, I can't imagine why anyone would ever bother to exercise such a
privilege, so I don't see why granting the privilege would create any
problems. This seems like an imaginary "threat" whose worst consequence
would be...what?...an excessive number of paratypes designated by a few
eccentric taxonomists? What harm would that be, even if it did happen?
Surely the benefits outweigh this "threat" - if paratypes are worth having
at all, then people obviously believe they serve a beneficial purpose. Even
in the case above, is it necessarily a bad thing for science if an author
is permitted to broaden his/her original concept of a species? The
imposition of an arbitrary time limit on paratype designation simply
seems...arbitrary.
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