Key to 10 species requirement

[Kipling Will]

A few other points to consider on this matter-

What if a recent monograph has been done on the group to which the "new"
species belongs? Wouldn't a key to nine of those already covered plus one
new one be redundant?

In an isolated description wouldn't it be better to have a key or
explicit diagnoses that separate the "new" creature from those most
likely to be confused with it (simple similarity) or those that occur in
the same or adjacent regions?  This would leave figuring out the
relatedness of species to those who want to consider all the taxa and
evidence for a clade.

I think that forcing the so called "amateurs" to select the ten most
closely related species and treat them as a group is just asking for an
increase in sub-genera, many that will have no sound basis. I for one,
have way too many of these bogus species groups in the taxa I work on
already.

Kip


On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Gregor Hagedorn wrote:

> > 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!
>