Undescribed species and the Internet

[Richard Pyle]

> Does anyone know of any recent cases of this kind of thing?  In
> more than 35
> years in systematics, I have never encountered it, though
> warnings are often
> uttered.

The second species of living Coelacanth (Latimeria menadoensis), as
notoriousy described by Laurent Pouyaud and co-authors (who didn't know they
were co-authors), represents an example of this sort of thing. Here's an
excerpt from an article that Mark Erdman wrote in CalWild [53(2):8-13]:

****************

"True to its history of intrigue, the coelacanth tale here takes an ugly
turn. While awaiting word of acceptance of the article describing our
genetic results, I was flabbergasted to learn of the description of a new
species of coelacanth, Latimeria menadoensis, by the French aquaculturist
Laurent Pouyaud and five Indonesian co-authors. Though the full story will
perhaps never be known, it became obvious that Pouyaud resorted to shady
maneuverings in order to obtain tissue from the specimen that I had donated
to LIPI. Though he obtained this tissue under the pretense of a simple
genetic analysis, he expanded the results of that analysis into a cursory
description of the new species and hastily published it in a sympathetic
French journal, Comptes Rendus de L'Academie des Sciences. The paper
immediately caused a minor furor in the academic world, as the incomplete
description ignored much of the protocol of modern taxonomy (failing to
designate, for instance, a holotype specimen for the new species) and
presented several mistaken morphological and genetic differences with L.
chalumnae.

"Sloppiness aside, however, the paper was also highly questionable
ethically. Pouyaud's Indonesian "coauthors" were unaware of the description
until it was published, and were understandably upset at having their own
work on the taxonomic description of this new species subsumed while they
were relegated to junior authorship of "Pouyaud et al." Nevertheless, the
species name menadoensis seems to be here to stay. Just another chapter in
the ongoing coelacanth saga."

****************

The saga actually extends beyond that to include an attempt by the
unscrupulous players to clear their name by publishing a purported photo of
an earlier specimen they had collected....only to have the fake photo
recognized as such by the staff at Nature.  Check out the full account near
the bottom of:

http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood/archives/animalnet/2000/7-2000/an-07-1
4-00-02.txt

Anyway, the point is that this sort of thing *does* happen, and it is a
problem -- especially in cases of taxa with high amateur followings (as well
described by Wolfgang and Fabio).

But while I recognize that the problem is real, I still maintain that the
overall "benefits" of sharing images and information related to undescribed
species  vastly exceed the overall costs. As has already been pointed out,
the existing costs that can occur when researchers jealously guard their
discoveries and/or sit on them for years and years are not inconsequential,
and probably exceeed the costs of the problem such researchers are trying to
circumvent, in most cases.

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle
Ichthyology, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
http://www.bishopmuseum.org/bishop/HBS/pylerichard.html
"The opinions expressed are those of the sender, and not necessarily those
of Bishop Museum."