[Taxacom] When electing a neotype, how to define the other gender

[Scott Thomson]

Hi,

yes I too had not re-looked at the glossary definition sorry about that.

I also agree that allotypes have their uses from a taxonomic point of view,
I also specialise in species with high sexual dimorphism and have tended to
set them in the past for the species I described. Though I think I can see
I may need to adjust quite how I do it in the future.

Anyway I had a question that follows on from Doug's point on Neotypes and
modern DNA techniques. Hypothetically, if a recently described species has
a holotype that had been sequenced and this sequence is now on GenBank or
something and that type is subsequently lost wouldn't it be the case that
it is unlikely a neotype could be justified since its sequence would still
survive and could be compared to other specimens if needed. Although the
specimen would be physically lost I would think that under these
circumstances that sequence data would be enough to avoid taxonomic
confusion hence the application of names would still be fairly clear?

On older species names, pre-dating sequencing, not so sure because although
I see the point Doug was making re DNA data, I also think Frank made good
points too, including in the paper he linked. Maybe ensuring the type
locality of the Neotype is the same as the holotype if it was lost but
getting a new specimen so as to have DNA data would work, if exact type
locality is known. Of course I have had to deal with species where the type
locality is Australia, not very helpful.

Sorry if this is too much of a divergence from the original question.

Cheers, Scott


On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Denis Brothers <Brothers at ukzn.ac.za> wrote:

> For groups where sexual dimorphism is extreme (such as velvet-ants,
> Mutillidae), it is useful for taxonomic reasons to have some indication
> which specimen of the opposite sex from the holotype was the prime source
> for the description of that sex, whether this happened when the taxon was
> originally described (and therefore the allotype would, presumably, be a
> paratype) or later, when the allotype would not be part of the type series.
> Of course, such a specimen could be labelled in a way that does not use the
> term "allotype" (as has already been mentioned), but "allotype" seems
> nevertheless to be useful, no matter when specified. The false assumption
> that an allotype must be a paratype merely needs recognition. I really
> don't see the argument that later specification of an allotype requires
> additional research to check whether it was part of the type series or not
> - such information on the composition of the type series needs to be done
> in any case. (And the many instances of mixed type series diminish the
> taxonomic "authority" of paratypes anyway.)
>
> Denis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:
> taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Frank.Krell at dmns.org
> Sent: 01 October 2013 01:44 AM
> To: TPape at snm.ku.dk; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] When electing a neotype, how to define the other
> gender
>
> "Having the formal category "allotype" would seem to imply that a
> particular paratype (of a sex different from the holotype) has a
> nomenclatural status that the other paratypes (of a sex different from the
> holotype) do not have."
>
> I don't see this implication, and I agree that an allotype does not have a
> different status from any paratype, if it is a paratype. Regulating the
> term allotype would just - hopefully - prevent people from designating
> allotypes well after the original description, so that others would not
> have to research whether specimens labeled as allotypes belong to the
> original type series or not.
>
> Frank
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
> methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:
> mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
> methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:
> mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
>



-- 
Scott Thomson
29400 Rt 6
Youngsville, PA, 16371
USA
(814) 802 1044
cell - (814) 779 8457
http://www.carettochelys.com