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

[Pavel Štys]

I fully agree with Denis. Moreover,  Recommendation 72A explicitly states
that allotype does not have any name-bearing function. Its taxonomic
function is limited to potential facilitation of identification of the
individuals of sex opposite to the holotype. I should like to stress that
SEX (though ambiguous) is proper term; GENDER is ridiculous outside of
linguistic and cultural connotations.
Pavel Štys



On 30 September 2013 14:50, Denis Brothers <Brothers at ukzn.ac.za> wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>



-- 
Prof. RNDr. Pavel Stys
Editor, EJE; Commissioner, ICZN London
Research: Heteroptera (systematics, ethology), evolutionary entomology,
aposematism
Department of Zoology
Charles University
Vinicna 7, Praha 2
CZ-128 44 Czech Republic
e-mails: <pavelstys at gmail.com>
             phone: xx420-22195-1835
fax: xx420-22195-1841