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

Mon Sep 30 17:25:02 CDT 2013

Frank: In the position paper you refer to, you mention that "the current
Code is unclear about the status of allotypes ...". The Code is clear in
its definition of the term allotype in the Glossary as: "A term, not
regulated by the Code". Not regulated means that there will be no
nomenclatural consequences no matter how the term is used.

Giving a formal definition of allotype as a paratype of a different sex
from the holotype, will have no advantages. The sex of the holotype as
well as the sex of the individual paratypes is relevant information.
Some paratypes may be of the same sex as the holotype - others may be of
a different sex. However, that can easily be explained without using the
term "allotype". Having the formal category "allotype" would seem to
imply that a particular paratype (of a sex different from the holotype)
has a nomenclatural status that the other paratypes (of a sex different
from the holotype) do not have.

This is not the case, and the term allotype in itself therefore carries
no nomenclatural implications. And therefore it need not be regulated by
the Code. Which it isn't.

Simple living!

/Thomas Pape

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
Frank.Krell at dmns.org
Sent: 30. september 2013 23:36
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

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.
_______________________________________________
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.