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

Mon Sep 30 16:35:44 CDT 2013

Recommendation 75A. Choice of neotypes. Authors are advised to choose neotypes from any surviving paratypes or paralectotypes unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary...

Life is good!

Frank

________________________________________
From: Chris Thompson [xelaalex at cox.net]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 3:30 PM
To: Frank T. Krell; 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

Sorry, Frank,

you are acting like a typologist. That is, some specimens are more important
than others merely because they are called “paratypes” or “allotypes” or
what ever.

Yes, there are nomenclatural types, which are critical to tie a scientific
hypothesis to a name. And the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
does provide definition and regulations about those. They are holotype,
lectotype, neotype and when unresolved, syntypes. These types ensure that a
single name is affixed to a particular scientific hypothesis.

Yes, knowing what additional specimens an author may have used to define a
hypothesis is useful. So, the tradition of original authors labeling the
rest of the specimens they used to develop their hypothesis as “paratypes,”
[and, yes, that specimen of the other sex as “allotype”], can be useful. BUT
these have NO status for nomenclature. AND unfortunately subsequent users
get confused about that.

For taxonomy, the scientific hypothesis is critical. And for understanding
that subsequent workers should examine as much material as available, not
just what was original available when the hypothesis was proposed.

For nomenclature, when subsequent workers formulate a new hypothesis, then
they merely need to examine the nomenclatural type and see where it fall in
respect to that hypothesis (circumscription, etc.).

As for neotypes, there is NO restrictions or preferences about what is
eligible to become a neotype. Again, the scientific hypothesis is critical
and the best neotype is the one that best documents that hypothesis, not
necessarily those that an original author may have had, etc.

Oh, well ...

Sincerely,

Chris

from home

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank.Krell at dmns.org
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 11:53 AM
To: xelaalex at cox.net ; 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

Chris, oh well, I disagree. The current Code does not say that allotypes
have nothing to do with nomenclature. It says, allotypes can be relevant for
nomenclature, or not. This is not helpful. They can be relevant if they are
paratypes (as name bearers in waiting, meaning preferred candidates for
neotypes, if the primary type is lost). They can be irrelevant if they are
not paratypes.
I know that there are people who even want to have paratypes kicked out of
the Code as they are no name bearers, but in our fear that we might touch
something that is science as supposed to pure nomenclature, we should not
forget that the Code should be a helpful tool, not a statement of pure
nomenclatural philosophy. Shouldn't it?

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: Chris Thompson [xelaalex at cox.net]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 9:30 AM
To: Frank T. Krell; 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

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.