 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
A note edit
The ICZN does not know "valid publication".
I am pretty sure that the ICZN does not recognize "isotypes" (certainly they are not in the glossary).
The remark on types that are required is off as well. Brya 15:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Allotype edit
As I read the ICZN an allotype does not appear to be part of the type series (or not necessarily to be part of it):
- 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.
However I am not familiar enough with zoological taxonomic practice to be sure I read this right. Brya 06:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Allotype designations are, as far as I am aware, always performed at the time a species is described (by historical convention, not by any mandate of the Code, since the Code does not regulate them), and the specimen selected as allotype is therefore inevitably part of the type series; thus, by definition, a paratype. To date, of several hundred museum specimens I have encountered labeled as "allotypes," each has been part of the type series, and I have never once seen a literature designation of an allotype anywhere other than in an original description. Admittedly, I cannot demonstrate that this is true outside of the Insecta, and if anyone knows of examples to the contrary, I would be very interested to know the citation. I will, however, alter the text to reflect that this is not a formal definition, as you are correct that it is not. 138.23.134.119 18:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- The point here is "is therefore inevitably part of the type series". It looks to me that an author is allowed to designate an allotype while at the same time explicitly excluding it from the type series. I don't know why he should do so, but he could, couldn't he? Brya 10:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Also, if it is true that it "is almost without exception designated in the original description," then there are some exceptions, and in those cases it won't be a paratype, will it?
- The point here is "is therefore inevitably part of the type series". It looks to me that an author is allowed to designate an allotype while at the same time explicitly excluding it from the type series. I don't know why he should do so, but he could, couldn't he? Brya 10:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, a user could designate an allotype from material that is not part of the type series, but this almost never happens. That is precisely the point of including allotype here, in the treatment of paratype. It is very, very rare for an allotype to not also be a paratype. I know of no such cases, but I'm certain some must exist, somewhere. That's why I said the two terms are related rather than saying they are synonymous. It hardly seems worth designating a separate article to allotype, given that it will not reduce the amount of text in this article.
Merge edit
This article probably goes into far too much detail; what is absolutely necessary can probably be covered under or merged to the Biological type article. MrDarwin 13:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)