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

Chris Thompson xelaalex at cox.net
Mon Sep 30 10:30:00 CDT 2013 

Sorry, Frank,

Denis is correct. Nomenclature is separate from Science. Hence, the 
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature should not be involved in 
things that have NO purpose for nomenclature.

Yes, the glossary is useful to define things and in this case, properly 
informs people that allotypes, etc., have NOTHING to do with nomenclature.

Yes, additional specimens and the character data derived from them may be 
very useful for enhancing, rejecting, etc., taxonomic hypotheses, but only 
the primary type (HT, LT, NT, or STs) have any nomenclatural significance.

It is unfortunately, people still confuse nomenclature and Science with this 
typological thinking.

Oh, well ...

Chris Thompson

-----Original Message----- 
From: Frank.Krell at dmns.org
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 11:09 AM
To: Brothers at ukzn.ac.za ; scott.thomson321 at gmail.com ; 
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] When electing a neotype, how to define the other 
gender

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Denis, but I do not appreciate the 
situation. The current edition of the Code does not regulate the term 
allotype which I do neither consider progress nor helpful in any way. 
Therefore, Jorge Santiago-Blay, Brett Ratcliffe, myself and Bob Anderson 
published a position paper for reinstating recommendation 72C from the third 
edition:

Santiago-Blay, J.A., Ratcliffe, B.C., Krell, F.-T. & Anderson, R. 2008. 
Allotypes should be from the type series: a position paper for reinstating 
Recommendation 72A from the third edition of the Code that defines the term 
'allotype'. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 65 (4): 260-264. London.
It can be downloaded at: 
http://www.dmns.org/media/363651/140-bullzoolnom2008allotypes.pdf

I guess you can add your comments here: http://iczn.org/node/40327

It is confusing that something that is called type and of which many think 
it is part of the type series is sometimes not - with approbation of the 
current Code.

Stuart, you asked "If the female is neither a paratype or allotype, is there 
no concise term to refer to the first described female?" - just call it 
"first described female". This is a pretty concise and clear term.

Cheers

Frank

Dr. Frank-T. Krell
Curator of Entomology
Commissioner, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Chair, ICZN ZooBank Committee
Department of Zoology
Denver Museum of Nature & Science
2001 Colorado Boulevard
Denver, CO 80205-5798 USA
Frank.Krell at dmns.org
Phone: (+1) (303) 370-8244
Fax: (+1) (303) 331-6492
http://www.dmns.org/science/museum-scientists/frank-krell
lab page: http://www.dmns.org/krell-lab
The Denver Museum of Nature & Science aspires to create a community of 
critical thinkers who understand the lessons of the past and act as 
responsible stewards of the future.


________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
[taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Denis Brothers 
[Brothers at ukzn.ac.za]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 6:50 AM
To: Scott Thomson; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] When electing a neotype, how to define the other 
gender

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.
_______________________________________________
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.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list