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

[Denis Brothers]

Contrary to Scott and Doug, the Code defines "allotype" (in the Glossary) as "A term, not regulated by the Code, for a designated specimen of opposite sex to the holotype". There is no mention of an allotype being part of the type series - it can be any designated specimen, even one so recognised years later, so does not have to be a paratype (althpugh it could be). Recommendation 72A essentially repeats the definition. Since "allotype" is "not regulated  by the Code", it is in no way connected with any other sort of "type" which may even peripherally have nomenclatural significance.

Denis

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Thomson
Sent: 28 September 2013 08:53 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] When electing a neotype, how to define the other gender

>From my understanding of all that I would suggest the female you refer 
>to
can be no more than a referred specimen. The neotype is now the type of the species and an allotype is really just a paratype that is of opposite gender of the holotype, and yes should be from the originally described type series. If I was dealing with this I would keep it simple, you have a neotype, thats the important one, all the rest whatever they are are referred specimens. That way there can be no confusion, the name goes with the neotype.

Cheers, Scott


On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Stuart Longhorn <sjl197 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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.