More on Allotypes

Gloyd (1982) has recently exhorted users of the bionomenclatural term "allotype" to conform to its original definition, to wit as the designation of a specimen by either the original or another author, from either the hypodigm or other material, as an example of the sex opposite that of the holotype of the same species. In particular, her purpose was to counteract the revision of definition by most recent authorities to limit understanding of allotype to one of the paratypes. Under that revision, lacking a paratype of the sex opposite that of the holotype, there would be no allotype. The move to return to the original definition of the term is fully justified, and is here endorsed. However, certain refinements within the parameters of the original definition seem in order. Since there can be only one active onomatophore (holotype, neotype or lectotype) for any species-group taxon (although any syntype and, presumably, any paratype or lectoparatype may be considered potential or reserve onomatophores), an allotype has no formal status in nomenclature, and serves merely whatever other purposes custom dictates. In this respect the term allotype is much like the term topotype, applied either to paratypes (topoparatypes) or to nontypical specimens. The difference lies in the fact that topotypes, by convention (since they have no official status), are unlimited in numberall specimens from the type locality are topotypes-whereas there is but one allotype, as originally conceived. Although limitation of the term allotype to paratypes, as exemplified by most recent accounts, is undesirable as both self-defeating and inconsistent with the original definition of the word (as pointed out by Gloyd, 1982), it would be useful to expand application of the word, paralleling in part the usage of the term "topotype," by addition to it of prefixes appropriate to special contexts not originally envisioned. For example, if the allotype were a part of the original hypodigm, it would logically be an alloparatype. An allotype subsequently designated as the formal (although not official) representative of the sex opposite that of the holotype may reasonably be termed a metallotype. Any specimen representing the sex opposite that of the holotype might be termed an ethallotype (from the Greek word transliterated as "ethas," meaning "ordinary"). Unfortunately, such a system of prefixes clearly implies that alloparatypes, metallotypes and ethallotypes are all allotypes, thereby distorting the more limited original meaning of the latter term as badly as the recent interpretation as simply a paratype of the sex opposite that of the holotype. A simple means for avoiding such criticism is to maintain the original sense, by distinguishing between "designated" allotypes-single specimens explicitly designated to serve as role model for their sex-and allotypes (of unlimited number) that are simply allotypic (i.e., of the sex opposite that of the holotype). By such means the original intent for the term allotype may be maintained while at the same time permitting greater flexibility in its use without courting ambiguity. The term thereby can realize its potential, paralleling that of the currently much more popular term topotype. The term alloparatype has already been proposed (Frizzell, 1933:643) although in a somewhat different sense-a paratype of the same sex as the allotype. That sense is no longer tenable, for it implies onomatophore weight of the allotype, contrary to current rules of nomenclature. The terms metallo-