Undescribed species and the Internet

[Bill Shear]

On 5/21/02 11:40 AM, "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG> wrote:

>> 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."
>
Richard, would not this name be invalid in the absence of the designation of
a type specimen?