Neallotype specimen.

[nomad]

I have this definition of a Neallotype specimen.

A  type specimen of the opposite sex to the holotype and collected and described later than the holotype . Correct?

[africaone]

this term have no legal existence. This is a long time debate.

a better term for this non official category is alloreferent because neallotype : ne(o) allotype gives confusion with neotype, allotype alone doesn't indicate the fact it is published after the holotype.

Anyway the term type is reserved for material included in the description (except some cases of neotypes).

[nomad]

Nov 10, 2016 15:15:09 GMT africaone said:

non official category

The term Neallotype was used by the BMNH. The term alloreferent is new to me.

[africaone]

here the ICCN web page, I have not found this term in the paper édition.

www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/

[Adam Cotton]

I agree with africaone in that neallotype has no "legal existence". Presumably he means that it is not a valid term recognised by the ICZN Code. The word neallotype does not appear anywhere in the Code. However, I would not recommend using an alternative term such as "alloreferent", which I had not heard of either. That just adds another unnecessary term to the vocabulary.

There was an attempt many years ago to add subsequently discovered specimens of the opposite sex to the type series, so I am not surprised that the word neallotype may be found attached to specimens in the BMNH collection. I can imagine it could be attached to some Ornithoptera specimens that were originally described from a single specimen of the other sex.

The term "allotype" is defined in the Code glossary as
"A term, not regulated by the Code, for a designated specimen of opposite sex to the holotype
[Recommendation 72A]."

Recommendation 72A states:
"Recommendation 72A. Use of the term "allotype". The term "allotype" may be used to indicate a
specimen of opposite sex to the holotype; an "allotype" has no name - bearing function."

The "allotype" is basically a paratype specimen chosen in the original description to represent the opposite sex to the holotype. It should be born in mind that if it is not part of the original type series, but subsequently designated from new material in a later publication, then the "allotype" is not even a paratype.

Adam.

[africaone]

alloreferent has been proposed and justified in a paper (I don't find anymore the copy, i will try to (re)get it).
Anywhere, it has no legal existence and has been proposed just to find a name to designate an opposite sex described after the orinal description, to replace the tem néallotype that is ambigous for many reasons (not a -type, confusion with neotype, etc.).

[Adam Cotton]

Nov 10, 2016 17:34:20 GMT africaone said:

alloreferent has been proposed and justified in a paper (I don't find anymore the copy, i will try to (re)get it).
Anywhere, it has no legal existence and has been proposed just to find a name to designate an opposite sex described after the orinal description, to replace the tem néallotype that is ambigous for many reasons (not a -type, confusion with neotype, etc.).

For what it is worth it makes some sense, particularly as a way of reducing the similarity to the word neotype. it will be interesting if you can find the paper and give us the reference here.

Adam.

[Adam Cotton]

Nov 10, 2016 14:53:11 GMT nomad said:

I have this definition of a Neallotype specimen.

A  type specimen of the opposite sex to the holotype and collected and described later than the holotype . Correct?

To answer the original question, since the "Neallotype specimen" was 'collected and described later than the holotype', the definition is incorrect because it is not a type specimen.

Adam.

PS. I am not 'having a go at Peter' here, I just want to make the distinction between true type specimens and specimens described later clear to everyone.

[africaone]

the paper is
Dechambre R-P 2002 - Néallotype ou Alloréférent, de l'utilité de ce concept et de son bon usage
Le Coléopteriste 43:163-164

[nomad]

To make matters clear. A specimen is described by a single male or female and that is the Holotype specimen. Then afterwards someone then finds the first specimen of either sex that is not the Holotype. Then that specimen, the first of that sex to be taken is not a type of any sort? It all seems strange to me, because let us say it is a female specimen, the original description of that specimen has no meaning at all and when others perhaps much later capture others of the same sex they have not got any reference to a type specimen of that sex  I believe the first specimen of either sex that was not described as a holotype specimen, at least should have a type name. At least alloreferent as suggested by africaone is better than no name at all.

[africaone]

to have no doubt, a species must be designated by only one specimen, the holotype. any other exemplar, male or female can be joined as paratypes, with a special mention for one of the sex opposite of the holotype, the allotype. All these paratypes have no value to designate the species despite they have some scientific value to allow to understand what is the species (in terms of variation, polymorphism, sexuel dimorphism etc.). Holotype and paratypes (including allotype) are the type series, but only the holotype can be used as reference for the species. the type series must be joined in the original description. Any other descriptions after the original paper are without any type value.
One can see that the opposite sex have some scientific value, espcially in case of sexual dimorphism and despite none terms are officially recognised (as néallotype or alloreferrent).

[wollastoni]

Yes, there is one type per species, not per gender of each species.
It seems a bit strange to me too, but that's the rule.

When Chris Davenport described Delias vietnamensis pequini from 6 males and one female, the "type" was a male, the 5 other males and the female were "paratypes".
Even if the female is the only known in collection AFAIK and in the description, she has no other status than "paratype".

[Adam Cotton]

(In reply to Peter, Thierry and Olivier replied while I was writing this)

I agree with you that it is far from ideal that there are not representatives of both sexes in the type series, never mind in the case where a new species is/was described from a single specimen; but the answer is no, it is not possible to subsequently add any specimens for any reason to the type series.

The holotype is the name bearing specimen, and if it was originally described from a single example a subsequent publication can describe the opposite sex of the same species, but it cannot be designated as an additional type specimen. The 'rules' are clear, only specimens involved in the original description can be type specimens - either all listed specimens are syntypes with equal name-bearing status, or a holotype is designated in the description, and all other listed specimens are paratypes. If it is clear from the original description that the taxon is described from only a single specimen then that specimen is the holotype, but if there is more than one specimen then the holotype must be chosen in the original description. A holotype cannot be subsequently designated. If such action is taken when no holotype was designated in the original description, then the chosen specimen is actually the lectotype, and the other (previous syntypes) become paralectotypes.

To explain why types cannot be added subsequently, we need to be hypothetical. Suppose a species is named from a single female. A year later a collector catches a male in the same place and sends it to be described as the opposite sex of the first species. A year after that another collector goes there and catches another female actually mating with a male, but this male is different to the one described before. If the first male was actually given 'type' status alongside the original female this would at least cause confusion, even if the female holotype actually retained the name-bearing status.

Obviously it is best to describe species based on a series of both sexes, and nowadays it is normal practice to designate one specimen of the series as the holotype which carries the name of the species, and in the event that some or all of the paratypes are not actually the same as the holotype the name bearing status STAYS with the holotype regardless. One of the paratypes can subsequently become the holotype of the new species, different to the original holotype which retains the original name.

Sometimes it just isn't possible to describe a new species with examples of both sexes. When I was a co-author of Lamproptera paracurius a couple of years ago we had a large series of males, but no females at all. We have recently obtained a few females and will publish a paper describing the female soon, along with genitalia preparations and discussion of the differences between the females of this and the other two species in the genus, but we cannot designate any of the females as types of any kind.

Adam.

[Adam Cotton]

Adding to the explanations by Thierry and Olivier, I should point out that in fact a single specimen holotype does not have to be designated in a description of a new species or subspecies. Since the current Code was written at the end of 1999 type specimens MUST be designated in the original description, but they can either be a series of SYNTYPES each of which has equal name-bearing status, or a single HOLOTYPE which may be accompanied by one or more PARATYPES. The holotype is the only specimen with name bearing status in this, now normal, situation. Nowadays a holotype is nearly always designated but it is still acceptable to designate a syntypic series although this rarely happens, the important difference between the current Code and before 2000 is that types must actually be designated in the original description.

Back in the early days, from Linnaeus until types started to be used about 100 years or so ago, it was relatively rare that the number of actual specimens was made clear in the original description. Unless it was clearly stated in the original description that the new taxon was based on a single specimen (or a holotype, often just called "the type", was designated in the description) all specimens examined by the author are automatically treated as syntypes, even if only a single specimen is currently in a collection. It is quite possible that in many cases one of these syntypes may have been chosen later to represent the taxon, and has been referred to in a subsequent publication as "the type", in which case that specimen becomes the LECTOTYPE. Under the current Code a Lectotype designation must have a clear statment of intent and should also include a taxonomic reason for the designation, but before 2000 Lectotypes could be 'accidentally' designated just by using the phrase "the type" or equivalent in reference to a particular specimen (eg. d'Abrera accidentally designated a significant number of lectotypes in his Butterflies of the xxx Region books in the case where he used the term "type as illustrated" with a red dot next to the specimen on the plate, and that specimen was actually a syntype and not the holotype or previously designated lectotype - all of these statements need careful checking to find out the correct status of such specimens). Thus the changes in the current Code particularly prevent accidental designation of lectotypes. They also prevent the deliberate designation of lectotypes purely to 'tidy up' a syntypic series such that a single specimen becomes the name-bearing type. There were even cases of museum workers deliberately designating lectotypes purely in order to ensure that the name-bearing type is housed in their museum rather than another museum which also housed some of the syntypes of the same original series. Sometimes this actually caused subsequent taxonomic problems, because the lectotype was not carefully chosen to consider the identity of the taxon relative to another similar one, and once a lectotype has been designated, deliberately or accidentally, the only way to overturn the designation is by application to the Commission so that they may rule on whether to change the designation or not. There must be a very good reason before the Commission will do so, based on long term nomenclatorial stability which is the aim of the Code.

There is another common problem with regard to Lectotypes in museum collections, quite often specimens have been labelled as lectotypes but those designations were never actually published, so in fact the specimen is still a syntype along with the rest of the original series. For example before retirement from the BMNH Campbell Smith worked on Graphium (Pazala) and attached lectotype labels to specimens he was going to designate as such, but never actually finished the work and never published it. Similarly Jason Weintraub worked on Pachliopta and photographed many specimens, adding a lectotype label to the ones he chose as such, but again he never published his work, and those specimens plus the remainder of the syntypic series remain as syntypes, not lectotypes and paralectotypes. So it is important to be sure that designation of a lectotype specimen in a museum has actually been published.

Adam.

[cabintom]

For whatever reason, I find this conversation fascinating!