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

[Stuart Longhorn]

I'm just reviewing a study where the original single male type is lost.
>From other museum material (collected elsewhere later than the original male) they elect another male specimen as neotype. Then from an even later female specimen (again collected elsewhere), they elect a female as paratype.
First, i think this usage of paratype is wrong, do you agree?Second, I think the female could correctly be referred to as allotype - but is that correct?Or does an allotype have to be part of the original type series (e.g. an actual paratype).
If the female is neither a paratype or allotype, is there no concise term to refer to the first described female?[i accept that often it is insecure that the female actually matches the male, though here it is certain]
Thanks in advance for any advicestuart

------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Stuart Longhorn, MSc PhD FLSPostDoctoral Fellow. Hon. Res. Assoc. Oxford University Museum of Natural History 
Email: sjl197 at hotmail.com------------------------------------------------------------------ > > http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/stuart-longhorn/> > http://www.linkedin.com/pub/stuart-longhorn/a/a74/877