[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 188, Issue 11
Milen Marinov
mg_marinov at yahoo.com
Thu Dec 16 14:42:06 CST 2021
Hi all,
John made a very good point – the proposal for the scientific name Nessiteras rhombopteryx was published in Nature back in 1975. So, simply because it was published in a prestigious journal doesn’t necessarily mean it should be used as a good example. Similarly with resources cited in the present discussion – yes, some taxonomists have done it (introducing new taxa based on photos only), but that doesn’t mean this is a practice which should be followed.
The proposal of the scientific name for Nessie was based on very poor photos indeed, but the quality isn’t the issue in here. Regardless of resolution of the picture, sophistication of equipment used to take it, etc. it is just a snapshot and will remain as such no matter how much we advance in technologies in future. The thing to remember in here by all taxonomists – when delimiting taxa we are not looking for differences, but trying to establish distinctiveness of the taxon we propose as new. This distinctiveness is proven by various methods – phenetic, molecular, biogeography, ecology, bioacustic, ethology and anything else which can give us a clue that the proposed new taxon is in any way a distinct evolutionary unit.
Another point to remember is – we propose the distinctiveness based on our current understandings of the science we do. This is based on the concepts we use at this present time, hypotheses we create to test them and criteria to tell us we are somewhere there where we want to be. These concepts may change in future, so we have obligation to the generations after us to provide them with material for testing our present hypotheses. Therefore, a photo (regardless of the quality and resolution) can’t provide sufficient material to study for the future generations.
Other points in the discussion was about specimens from the type serries which for some reasons are not existent any longer. Yes, indeed – but in most of the cited cases those specimens were available for diagnosing the taxon.
More – reading the comments in the discussion I see that there is a bit of misunderstanding of the taxonomy and nomenclature. The Code has been cited in support of decisions in taxonomy. Please, remember – these two are interrelated, but are anyway different domains. Taxonomy is the science which is based on what we consider as a good practice, but it has no rules (and shouldn’t have any!!!). That’s why if some people decide to introduce a new taxon based on photograph and they consider this as a good practice, they are totally allowed to do so … if they find peers to support their view and journal to publish it. Just like the Orthoptera guys have done it for the Peruvian species – it was introduced as new to science, but wasn’t named. The authors have criticised the Code heavily, but finally decided not to name the taxon they proposed, which is a kind of indication for me that even they realised that naming a new taxon based on a photo was not a practice which could be recommended to others.
As for the topic if the Code allows for fixation of nomina to non-existing specimens – I think no, it doesn’t. I have read the paper and the discussions in support of this idea and it seems to me that people favouring this approach are very selective of certain articles and recommendations in the Code which, when read alone, may infer that the Codeallows for such actions. However, theCode is a legislation with certain principles and should be read and interpreted as a whole document, not as a compilation of various articles. Go through the articles to see that the so called type specimens allow for an unambiguous association of a proposed nomen to a currently recognised concept in taxonomy. Live individuals from photos can’t assure this association. They can be used as illustrative material in support of the hypothesised new taxon, but the actual fixation of the nomen to the concept happens with a nomenclature act of three steps: 1) nomenclatural availability, 2) taxonomic allocation, and 3) nomenclatural validity and correctness. Specimens from the type series are needed for the second stage.
Kind regards,
Milen
On Friday, 17 December 2021, 07:00:06 AM NZDT, taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
Daily News from the Taxacom Mailing List
When responding to a message, please do not copy the entire digest into your reply.
____________________________________
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Discovering insect species based on photographs only
(John Grehan)
2. Re: Discovering insect species based on photographs only
(Thomas Pape)
3. Re: Discovering insect species based on photographs only
(John Grehan)
4. Re: Discovering insect species based on photographs only
(Dirk Ahrens)
5. Re: Discovering insect species based on photographs only
(John Grehan)
6. Re: Discovering insect species based on photographs only
(Stephen Thorpe)
7. Cancel culture in taxonomy: now the Australians are pushing
for it! (Stephen Thorpe)
8. Re: Discovering insect species based on photographs only
(Thomas Pape)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:21:04 -0500
From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
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
Message-ID:
<CADN0ud00yK47rqZO-DDDcYm-ODK52rLYSEPM2epBtZR_mJM2qQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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:
> 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.
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 18:55:47 +0000
From: Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
To: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Discovering insect species based on photographs
only
Message-ID: <f7ebf54e75634b9fb479db3f30dc1e45 at snm.ku.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 14:34:04 -0500
From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
To: Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
Cc: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, Dilrukshan Wijesinghe
<dpwijesinghe at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Discovering insect species based on photographs
only
Message-ID:
<CADN0ud1X6OaX3C4DfR2poZpbEzFtCpVtMx9Jnv5wsgFKqG-6Vg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Thanks for that, and other off list feedback. I guess it doesn't really
matter in the long run. I'm one of those 'show me a specimen' types, but
that is just my preference. When I was teaching Middle School I would ask
my students what would impress them most - a photo of a UFO or the UFO
itself. Response was pretty obvious.
Cheers, John
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 1:55 PM Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk> wrote:
> 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.
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 20:43:03 +0100
From: Dirk Ahrens <ahrens.dirk_col at gmx.de>
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
Message-ID: <C645295B-2411-41C6-A290-397483B94A0A at gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
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.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 14:52:37 -0500
From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
To: Dirk Ahrens <ahrens.dirk_col at gmx.de>
Cc: Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk>, Taxacom
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Discovering insect species based on photographs
only
Message-ID:
<CADN0ud0FeG-j4_2owgG98n0CKxAZRnjf91=Jrm-pNOaxHukLeg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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.
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 20:11:41 +0000 (UTC)
From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
To: Dilrukshan Wijesinghe <dpwijesinghe at yahoo.com>, John Grehan
<calabar.john at gmail.com>
Cc: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Discovering insect species based on photographs
only
Message-ID: <1700012779.1884642.1639599101750 at mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
John,The Nessie example is irrelevant. Describing a new species from inadequate photos is exactly the same as describing them from inadequate specimens, e.g. many impression fossils are in fact described from very dubiously adequate specimens (which are basically "bad photographs in rock"!) As I said in my Zootaxa paper on this subject, a good photo can be better than a bad specimen. This whole controversy is based on knee jerk responses to something outside the well entrenched norm in taxonomy, or, in other words, an innovation!Cheers,Stephen
On Thursday, 16 December 2021, 07:21:57 am NZDT, John Grehan via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
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:
> 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.
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:23:13 +0000 (UTC)
From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
To: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: [Taxacom] Cancel culture in taxonomy: now the Australians are
pushing for it!
Message-ID: <1466357319.1826359.1639603393952 at mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Big sigh! Rename species named after "bad guys"! This ridiculous idea has now jumped across the ditch to Australia!Meet Hitler's beetle — the species going extinct because of its name
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
| |
Meet Hitler's beetle — the species going extinct because of its name
One of Australia's largest groups of flower species is named after a wealthy British slave-trader. And Nazi memo...
|
|
|
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:35:32 +0000
From: Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
To: Dirk Ahrens <ahrens.dirk_col at gmx.de>, Taxacom
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Discovering insect species based on photographs
only
Message-ID: <85bbd3ead06b49dd945efe5c40659399 at snm.ku.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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.
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
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.
------------------------------
End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 188, Issue 11
****************************************
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list