Key to 10 species requirement

[Gregor Hagedorn]

> I have a couple of questions about the 10 "most closely related species"
>
> By whose criteria?  Yours or mine?  By what criteria?  Morphology?
> Molecular?  Which gene?

When I originally suggested

"If a new species is described, a key for either all species of the
genus, or for the 10 species which are deemed most closely related
must be provided."

I was rather thinking of a recommendation, enforced by editorial
practice. If it should become a requirement, I would try the
following:

  "If a new taxon is described, a printed key for either all taxa
within the next higher rank, or for at least 10 taxa within that
rank. The taxa selected should be those considered closely related
with the new taxon by the publishing author must be provided."

Note: The choice of related taxa or errors in the key do not
   invalidate a publication. When a new species is described, the
   author(s) should follow common subgeneric concepts where they are
   present. The appropriateness of the taxa considered closely
   related should be evaluated critically during peer-review and by
   the editors of a publication.
     The key may be based on all information which is available for
   all taxa covered by the key, including molecular or physiological
   data. It may be presented in a dichotomous, multichotomous or
   synoptical form. Whenever possible, commonly used classical
   characters should be included, even if they are insufficient to
   separate the new taxon.
      The occurrence in different geographical regions, or (in the
   case of parasites) on  different hosts (anything else to add here?)
   may be documented in the key, but is considered insufficient as
   the sole distinguishing character.


I think that the requirement would work without a strict "legally"
defined definition of exactly which taxa are to be covered by the
key. I agree that this is often difficult to determine, and even
where it is simpler, even an expert may overlook taxa which may be in
competition with the new taxon (published recently, published with
minimum latin description in a language she or he cannot read, etc.).
This may lead to errors, but it is not necessary. I think that it
enforces the need to appropriately study related taxa. Anybody
describing a new species in a large genus, and simply picking just 10
random species would obviously make a fool of her- or himself. Most
people try to avoid that...

Excuse my English, maybe some native speaker could try to phrase it
in simpler language.

Gregor

Gregor Hagedorn
Inst. f. Mikrobiologie, BBA     Net: G.Hagedorn at bba.de
Koenigin-Luise-Str. 19          Tel: +49-30-8304-2220 or -2221
14195 Berlin, Germany           Fax: +49-30-8304-2203

Often wrong but never in doubt!