publishing and "amateurs"

[Neil Snow]

TAXACOMERS:

With regards to the publication by "amateurs" of dubious new species (my
posting of 18 Feb 1999 and later ones by E. Robbrecht, G. Witten, J.
LaFerriere, J. Soule, F. Moretzjohn and others), I second the suggestion
that a key to the ten "most closely related" species as a requirement
(not recommendation) of publicaton would likely put a considerable
damper on those publications.

In this context I offer a few comments regarding LaFerriere's concerns
(9 March posting) about this as a potential requirement, which I
reproduce below from his posting:

LaFerriere stated:
> Several problems here. a) Suppose there are only 4 other
> species in the genus [I suppose you could solve this
> problem by allowing the author to opt for #1 above].
> b) Suppose there is an unresolved taxonomic problem
> between two or more of the existing species. This proposal
> would seem to require resolution of that problem before
> any new species could be described, even if the new species
> is far removed from the problematic species.  c) Suppose
> the author makes an error in the key, an error concerning
> two of the old taxa but not affecting the new one. Does
> this invalidate the new name?

In order:

If only 4 other species exist in the genus, no problem.

If an unresolved taxonomic problem exists in a congeneric species
complex, then the author of the new species ought to be pretty darned
certain that his/her new species does not fall into that group;
hopefully a key would make that fairly evident. The complex itself could
be teased apart later.

If an error was made in the key by the author I see no reason why that
should invalidate the description. If several errors existed in the key,
then hopefully they would be spotted by the eye of a critical reviewer.

Dr. Neil Snow
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Northern Colorado
Greeley, CO 80639, U.S.A.