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

Robin Leech releech at telus.net
Mon Sep 30 09:21:17 CDT 2013


Scott and others, 
One of the reasons that allotypes are not recognized as paratypes is that
frequently, later, it is found that one or more of the allotypes are of a
different species.  Only the neotype has special designation.
Robin

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Denis Brothers
Sent: September-30-13 6:51 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.





More information about the Taxacom mailing list