[Nhcoll-l] syntypes

[Douglas Yanega]

On 8/3/23 10:18 AM, William Poly wrote:
> 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.
>
I will second this point: it seems to be an EXTREMELY common 
misconception that the ICZN discourages people from designating 
syntypes. *That isn't true*. We neither encourage it nor discourage it. 
It's a tool in the taxonomic tool kit, and has its own function.

The example Nate brings up shows one context in which the authors 
addressed a particular thing in a suboptimal way.

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.

The better thing to do, if one has - for example - REARED material of a 
species, with adults of both sexes, juveniles, etc., *all from a single 
population*, 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 *at 
one's discretion* (where if you had instead selected a holotype that was 
of the non-diagnostic sex, you would have to *formally petition* the 
Commission to replace that holotype with a different specimen).

The point is, there are definite advantages to designating syntypes, *so 
long as the conditions allowing for certainty of conspecificity are 
met*. It would be inappropriate to designate syntypes with series from 
multiple localities, for instance. Something like a mating pair is 
*probably* 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 *great* 
opportunity for designating syntypes.

Don't be afraid to do it if the situation is favorable.

If you become aware of someone trying to designate syntypes and being 
told by reviewers or editors that this is *unacceptable*, please refer 
them to a Commissioner. Acceptability depends on context.

Peace,

-- 
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)
              https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/nhcoll-l/attachments/20230803/a70e61ac/attachment.html>