<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/3/23 10:18 AM, William Poly wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJXW2Xga+O1fbaUQ-_Cwk+RjyfB7MzyvA1R9+xidcgGVc1WqTw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Thank you for the additional clarification of the situation
and for additional information, Nate and Doug. On the subject
of type specimens, it seems that some taxonomists still
designate lectotypes as a routine practice when it doesn't
seem warranted (all syntypes unquestionably the same taxon).
Having multiple name-bearing types can be useful, especially
if in several collections, to reduce catastrophic losses of
name-bearing types.</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I will second this point: it seems to be an EXTREMELY common
misconception that the ICZN discourages people from designating
syntypes. <b>That isn't true</b>. We neither encourage it nor
discourage it. It's a tool in the taxonomic tool kit, and has its
own function.<br>
</p>
<p>The example Nate brings up shows one context in which the authors
addressed a particular thing in a suboptimal way.</p>
<p>That is, they had specimens of both sexes, and variant forms, and
claimed that they were designating an "allotype" and
"morphotypes". The ICZN does not recognize either of these
categories at all. Under the ICZN, they are paratypes, and have no
name-bearing function. If the holotype is lost, those specimens
are the same as any other specimen, and a neotype would not need
to be selected from among them. The only real value a paratype has
is to give other researchers an idea of the circumscription of the
original author's species concept.<br>
</p>
<p>The better thing to do, if one has - for example - REARED
material of a species, with adults of both sexes, juveniles, etc.,
<b>all from a single population</b>, is to make them syntypes.
Then there are primary types of both sexes, instead of a primary
type of one, and a paratype of the other. It also helps reduce the
likelihood that a neotype will ever be needed if a subset of the
specimens are lost or damaged, as William notes. If it later turns
out that one sex has species-level diagnostic feature that the
other sex lacks, then a lectotype can be selected <b>at one's
discretion</b> (where if you had instead selected a holotype
that was of the non-diagnostic sex, you would have to <b>formally
petition</b> the Commission to replace that holotype with a
different specimen).</p>
<p>The point is, there are definite advantages to designating
syntypes, <b>so long as the conditions allowing for certainty of
conspecificity are met</b>. It would be inappropriate to
designate syntypes with series from multiple localities, for
instance. Something like a mating pair is <b>probably</b> good,
but for certain types of organisms, copulation between members of
different species happens often enough that designating a mating
pair as syntypes is not without risks. If one has reared a bunch
of critters from the same batch of eggs, that's pretty close to an
ideal situation; multiple individuals from a single brood is a <b>great</b>
opportunity for designating syntypes. <br>
</p>
<p>Don't be afraid to do it if the situation is favorable.</p>
<p>If you become aware of someone trying to designate syntypes and
being told by reviewers or editors that this is <b>unacceptable</b>,
please refer them to a Commissioner. Acceptability depends on
context.<br>
</p>
<p>Peace,<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html">https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html</a>
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82</pre>
</body>
</html>