[Taxacom] Discovering insect species based on photographs only

Wed Dec 15 15:35:32 CST 2021

Dear Dirk,

Yes, fortunately taxonomists take pride in their work.
  Most taxonomists describe species based on a preserved name-bearing type – which is a good thing.
  Most taxonomists provide detailed diagnostic information for new species – which is a good thing.
  Most taxonomists propose scientific names that are seen as ‘proper’ by most people – which is a good thing.

However, there are a very few exceptions.

Specifically for naming animal species without a preserved specimen, and your suggestion of “propagating "good scientific practice””, the ICZN has made these Recommendations:

-------------------------------------
Recommendation 73G. Specific reasons for designation of an unpreserved specimen as the name-bearing type.
An author should provide detailed reasoning why at least one preserved specimen, whether a complete individual organism or a part of such an individual, was not used as the name-bearing type for the new taxon and why the formal naming of the taxon is needed at a point in time when no preserved name-bearing type will be available.

Recommendation 73H. Assertion of due diligence.
When establishing a new species-group taxon without a preserved name-bearing type, steps taken by an author to capture and preserve a physical specimen of the new taxon and/or locate an existing preserved specimen in natural history collections should be recounted.

Recommendation 73I. Consultation with specialists.
Before the designation of an unpreserved specimen as a name-bearing type, an author should consult with specialists in the group in question.

Recommendation 73J. Comprehensive iconography and measurements.
When establishing a new species-group taxon without a preserved name-bearing type, the author should provide extensive documentation (e.g., multiple original high-resolution images, DNA sequences, etc.) of potentially diagnostic characters as completely as possible.
-------------------------------------

/Thomas

From: Dirk Ahrens <ahrens.dirk_col at gmx.de>
Sent: 15. december 2021 20:43
To: Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
Cc: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Discovering insect species based on photographs only

You don't often get email from ahrens.dirk_col at gmx.de<mailto:ahrens.dirk_col at gmx.de>. Learn why this is important<http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>

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<mailto: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<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2F537307b&data=04%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7C11aac3c6a4d9475be54b08d9c0031cf5%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637751941875404209%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=z8%2FdC3zl%2FJUSE7WXN9OMnlMoUXmFiMonFzG5MlxGK8c%3D&reserved=0>

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<mailto: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<mailto:dpwijesinghe at yahoo.com>>
Cc: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:dpwijesinghe at yahoo.com>
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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.