[Taxacom] Discovering insect species based on photographs only

Wed Dec 15 13:52:37 CST 2021

I had not even thought about the issue of doctoring photos. Could one make
up a whole swathe of new 'species' this way that would be undetectable? Bad
enough when specimens are manipulated this way (classic Piltdown), but at
least there is some chance of testing veracity.

inaturalist is a boon for finding new taxa, but to me photographing is not
'finding'. It is just an indication of existence that needs further
corroboration. In my group of study I successfully managed to encourage the
photographers to collect a specimen of a putatively new species and it is
now being described based on the specimen, not the original photo.

John Grehan

On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 2:43 PM Dirk Ahrens via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> Dear Thomas,
>
> nice, this so controversial topic came up again… ;)
>
> I suppose, quite really a lot of us practicing taxonomists would NOT
> describe a new species, rather than to do it based on only a PHOTOGRAPH,
> right?
>
> I think the Codes of Nomenclature(s) and respective commissions also have
> a certain role to help to lead taxonomy out of its crisis being blamed as a
> „non-hypothesis“-testing occupation, thus being not a science but a hobby
> of some „freaks“.
>
> We all know what you can do with photographs, no?
> And what about propagating "good scientfic practice“? To much? Every grant
> scheme has this implemented…
>
> Although the type concept, and thus the physical type, is not equivalent
> with a species delimitation procedure, however, it gives the outcome of the
> latter a meaning, i.e., which name can be referred to which entity (to put
> the modern results in the correct context of priority). Also, we can
> extract DNA and genomic data out of old types, and use this to further
> hypothesis testing. I cannot extract DNA out of a foto, or take additional
> morphometric measurements (to keep it more simple)! (How can I properly
> proof synonymy of a foot-species in a scientifically correct way to an
> possibily already existing species? - Impossible! IT must be subjective)
>
> So, I have the feeling the "whole about naming species on fotos thing"
> appears a little outdated model of doing science (and which taxonomists
> should understand), which by sure does not speed up the process of
> dicovering new species, but slowing it down.
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Dirk Ahrens
>
> ps. Does it makes sense to name scientifically a creature that likely does
> not exist? To allow this, brings taxonomy and nomenclature to a dead end.
>
>
> > Am 15.12.2021 um 19:55 schrieb Thomas Pape via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>:
> >
> > Dear John,
> >
> > In short, zoological species [nominal taxa of the species-group] are
> based on one or more specimens, but they can be named without an extant (or
> existing) physical name-bearing type:
> > https://www.nature.com/articles/537307b
> >
> > Our Codes of Nomenclature have to cover a wide range of situations, and
> as always the Devil is in the detail.
> >
> > Example:
> > The Egyptian entomologist H.H. Salem described a number of species of
> flies based on material from the Natural History Museum in London. He gave
> their correct depository, but they are not there. These flies were
> published in 1946, and my guess is that they disappeared during their
> shipping to London. Thus, they most likely did not exist when the
> publication appeared. Perhaps even before Salem submitted his manuscript.
> Does it matter -- not under the zoological Code
> >
> > At this very moment I am working on a manuscript for a revisionary paper
> describing several species for which the entire material (holotype +
> paratypes) disappeared in the fire when the Museu Nacional in Rio burned
> down in 2018. We have exquisite morphological documentation (descriptions,
> photos, and high-quality illustrations of the male genitalia). We can
> decide to publish these data without any new names, or we can propose
> formal names. Pros and cons can be put forward for both procedures, but the
> zoological Code does not rule against their naming.
> >
> > The issue of Nessie has come up several times, and if you have a photo
> (good or bad makes no difference) of what you honestly think is Nessie, you
> can publish a formal description and give it a scientific name (which
> actually has already been done). The name-bearing type will be whatever
> specimen(s) the photo shows.
> >
> > /Thomas
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of John
> Grehan via Taxacom
> > Sent: 15. december 2021 19:21
> > To: Dilrukshan Wijesinghe <dpwijesinghe at yahoo.com>
> > Cc: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Discovering insect species based on photographs
> only
> >
> > Could someone briefly remind me of whether photo only species naming is
> accepted under the current rules of nomenclature? I am sure I have a good
> photo of Nesse here somewhere.
> >
> > John Grehan
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 7:30 AM Dilrukshan Wijesinghe via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Discovering insect species based on photographs only: The case of a
> >> nameless species of the genus Scaria (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae) expand
> >> article infoNiko Kasalo, Maks Deranja, Karmela Adžić, Roberto Sindaco,
> >> Josip Skejo.
> >> Journal of Orthoptera Research 30(2): 173-184. (14 Dec 2021)
> >> doi.org/10.3897/jor.30.65885
> >>
> >>
> >> |
> >> |
> >> |
> >> |  |  |
> >>
> >> |
> >>
> >> |
> >> |
> >> |  |
> >> Discovering insect species based on photographs only: The case of a
> name...
> >>
> >> Niko Kasalo, Maks Deranja, Karmela Adžić, Roberto Sindaco, Josip Skejo
> >>
> >> A heated debate on whether a new species should be described without a
> >> physical specimen, i.e., by designating a...
> >> |
> >>
> >> |
> >>
> >> |
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Priyantha
> >>
> >>
> >> D. P. Wijesinghe
> >> dpwijesinghe at yahoo.com
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Taxacom Mailing List
> >>
> >> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> >> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailm
> >> an.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=04%7C0
> >> 1%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7Cab3dc3b72de148fa284e08d9bff7c5bd%7Ca3927f91cda
> >> 14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637751893162199976%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZ
> >> sb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3
> >> D%7C3000&sdata=BGK8VklpxYVsX2uP8h%2BV2zgUzUi32NJQNzf2OWTxSnA%3D&am
> >> p;reserved=0 You can reach the person managing the list at:
> >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> >> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxac
> >> om.markmail.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7Cab3dc3b72de1
> >> 48fa284e08d9bff7c5bd%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C6377
> >> 51893162199976%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2l
> >> uMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=tHbVSz9Tvi%2B9U4m
> >> wJA%2F6xvb90pR%2FQ4fQWqkbftA5RRc%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 34 years,
> 1987-2021.
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=04%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7Cab3dc3b72de148fa284e08d9bff7c5bd%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637751893162199976%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=BGK8VklpxYVsX2uP8h%2BV2zgUzUi32NJQNzf2OWTxSnA%3D&reserved=0
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992
> can be searched at:
> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7Cab3dc3b72de148fa284e08d9bff7c5bd%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637751893162199976%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=tHbVSz9Tvi%2B9U4mwJA%2F6xvb90pR%2FQ4fQWqkbftA5RRc%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
>