Search the Taxacom archive · Browse by month · Mirror of the former lists.ku.edu archive (1992–2025)

[Taxacom] Who should get the kudos?

Fernandez, Jose (AAFC/AAC) jose.fernandez at canada.ca
Thu Jan 3 12:47:16 CST 2019 

Hi all,

I am "guilty" of being the lead author of the paper David mentioned -as well as many other papers on the fauna of Microgastrinae wasps of Area de Conservacion Guanacaste (ACG) in Costa Rica, which have been published over the past 7-8 years. I think we have described 350+ new species of Microgastrinae from ACG, and we still have 800 or more new species awaiting description from that subfamily of parasitoid wasps. And most of those ACG species are named after collectors (the "gusaneros" or parataxonomists that walk the area collecting caterpillars and rearing them until adults or parasitoids emerge), or local students, or local managers/politicians that help preserve that natural wonder that is ACG. I should also disclose that most of the credit for doing that goes to Daniel Janzen and Winnie Hallwachs, as they have made an effort (for the past 35+ years or so) to protect and research ACG. And the result (beyond microgastrines) have been hundreds of names after people that either collected specimens or contributed in one way or another towards the work done in the ACG.

Personally, I agree with Mary when she said that naming after collectors build good will, and there is nothing wrong with that. Giving credit to others (indirectly via naming species after them) feels great, helps to foster collaboration and makes many people smile (I have gotten back such feedback from people that have felt touched by species I named after them... and it also feels good to me ;-)). 

Plus, there is the frequently overlooked advantage of naming species after people: species names tend to be more unique (and thus potential homonyms are minimized... Unless your name is as common as mine: there are hundreds of Jose Fernandez in the world! ;-)  
[Of course, I now read the comment from John Grehan that long names increase the potential for misspellings... Although he may have a point there, the argument goes both ways, as there are also very long species names that have nothing to do with honoring people. So I see both advantages and disadvantages of naming species after people's names].

As others have mentioned before me, the point of who "discovered" something is really a subjective issue. Personally, I would have preferred to name the species after the local collector (I have nothing against Wallace! But he has been recognized in a number of other ways by scientists, including his own "Wallace line", ain't that cool?). But I also see the point of Wallace being the one that realized it was a new species. And the local cultures there probably knew that species long before the two men of this story got the specimen... So, my personally reply to the original description is that it really is not clear cut nor perfectly defined (who "discovered" the species) and it should not matter either.  

And, anyways, we, the taxonomists, should not feel that important because we "name" species (although that is certainly cool), and should focus more on the quality of the papers produced. But crediting as many people as possible is my preferred way to go.

There is a point for another discussion (but I just do not have the time now) on how naming new species could be used more (by the taxonomic community) to get support for taxonomic research (not talking here about for profit business), and how we have, as community, failed to seize that opportunity. Perhaps in another time I will change my ideas on that.

Cheers,
Jose 

--
José L. Fernández-Triana, Ph.D.
Research Scientist, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Canadian National Collection of Insects (CNC) 
960 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0C6, CANADA 
Phone: 613-759-1034. Email: jose.fernandez at canada.ca 
Alternative email : cnc.braconidae at gmail.com
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Shorthouse, David
Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2019 12:58 PM
To: blaberus1 <g.beccaloni at gmail.com>
Cc: Taxacom <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Who should get the kudos?

...though to be sure, the children may not have been (and probably
weren't) "collectors". The point here is that there is no formal credit system for collecting specimens. So, we might as well use the opportunity for a greater good whenever possible.

David

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:54 PM Shorthouse, David <davidpshorthouse at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> George -
>
> There is no better example than bestowing credit to collectors than 
> this one: https://doi.org/10.3897/JHR.50.8220. Kudos to the team of 
> taxonomists that honoured all the children involved. "The new species 
> described...received patronyms based on the winners of a school child 
> nature awareness competition conducted by the Programa de Educación 
> Biológica de ACG in the last half of 2015".
>
> David
>
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:40 PM blaberus1 <g.beccaloni at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps I could ask: does anyone consider a collector to be the 
> > discoverer of a species if the collector did not realise it was new 
> > to science? The people I mentioned believe that it was Ali not 
> > Wallace who discovered Semioptera wallacii.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > George
> >
> > On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 16:29, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > George,
> > >
> > > In my experience for the group of my study species have sometimes 
> > > been named for the collector, sometimes not. Seems to be a discretionary choice.
> > > There seems to be no necessity for the Semioptera to have been 
> > > named after the collection. For the new species for which I have 
> > > been involved with none of the collectors who brought material to 
> > > the attention of myself or colleagues 'knew' in advance that they 
> > > had a new species. I have found new species in other groups and it 
> > > would be absurd to expect that the species should necessarily be 
> > > named after me just because I found the specimens. I think your 
> > > critics are unfamiliar with normal taxonomic practice. I'll be interested to what others on the list with broader experience have to say.
> > >
> > > John Grehan
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 11:18 AM blaberus1 <g.beccaloni at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I have been debating with historians of science and others for a 
> > >> while now about who discovered Semioptera wallacii (Standardwing Bird of Paradise):
> > >> –
> > >> was it Alfred Russel Wallace or his assistant Ali? They are 
> > >> arguing it was Ali as he shot the first specimen – and they 
> > >> believe it is a great injustice it was named after Wallace (in fact I have been called “racist”
> > >> for arguing against this point of view!).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Wallace wrote in his book *The Malay Archipelago* “Just as I got 
> > >> home I overtook Ali returning from shooting with some birds 
> > >> hanging from his belt.
> > >> He seemed much pleased, and said, "Look here, sir, what a curious bird,"
> > >> holding out what at first completely puzzled me. I saw a bird 
> > >> with a mass of splendid green feathers on its breast, elongated 
> > >> into two glittering tufts; but, what I could not understand was a 
> > >> pair of long white feathers, which stuck straight out from each 
> > >> shoulder. Ali assured me that the bird stuck them out this way 
> > >> itself, when fluttering its wings, and that they had remained so 
> > >> without his touching them. I now saw that I had got a great 
> > >> prize, no less than a completely new form of the Bird of 
> > >> Paradise, differing most remarkably from every other known bird.”
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> As a taxonomist my argument is that while Ali collected the first 
> > >> specimen he did not know it was a species new to Western 
> > >> taxonomy. We are talking about species new to SCIENCE, not simply 
> > >> new to Ali. Unlike Wallace, Ali was illiterate and was not a 
> > >> biologist/taxonomist. Wallace, however, thanks to his in-depth 
> > >> knowledge of the birds of the region, immediately recognised that 
> > >> it was a new species. He excitedly wrote to his agent
> > >> Stevens:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "...I believe I have already the finest & most wonderful bird in 
> > >> the island [Bacan, Indonesia]. I had a good mind to keep it a 
> > >> secret but I cannot resist telling you, I have got here a new 
> > >> Bird of Paradise!! of a new genus!!! quite unlike anything yet 
> > >> known, very curious & very handsome!!!
> > >> When I can get a couple of pairs I will send them overland to see 
> > >> what a new Bird of Paradise will really fetch. I expect £25 each! 
> > >> Had I seen the bird in Ternate I would never have believed it 
> > >> came from here, so far out of the hitherto supposed region of the 
> > >> Paradiseidae. I consider it the greatest discovery I have yet 
> > >> made..." (Wallace, 1858)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> So Wallace clearly thought HE had discovered it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The species was named in Wallace’s honour by Gray in 1859 -
> > >>
> > >> http://wallace-online.org/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=WSPEC
> > >> 017&viewtype=text based on a sketch which Wallace had sent.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> So my argument is that simply collecting a new species does not 
> > >> mean you discovered it – even if it is new to you personally. The 
> > >> discoverer is the person who realises it is a species not yet 
> > >> named by taxonomists. What do you think?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Incidentally, I note that none of 10 randomly selected species of 
> > >> cockroaches described in the last 10 years were named after the 
> > >> collectors of the holotypes of these species. Their names were, 
> > >> however, mentioned in the species descriptions, so they were credited for their efforts.
> > >> Perhaps,
> > >> however, some taxonomists do regularly name species after their 
> > >> collectors?
> > >> Does anyone know whether this practice is commonly followed by 
> > >> taxonomists of particular groups?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> George Beccaloni
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Taxacom Mailing List
> > >> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: 
> > >> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > >>
> > >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > >> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> > >> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, 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
> > >>
> > >> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
> > >>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: 
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, 
> > 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
> >
> > Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, 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

Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list