[Taxacom] Who should get the kudos?

[Robert Zuparko]

I think John Grehan hit the nail on the head:  Ali first saw the *specimen*
(and seemed to have realized that it was unusual, but did not know for sure
that it was "new"), but Wallace "discovered" the *species* by recognizing
that it was different from all other species.

Robert Zuparko
Essig Museum of Entomology
1101 Valley Life Sciences Building, #4780
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-3112
(510) 643-0804



On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 11:53 AM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

> Not quite sure what is being referred to as 'flawed and unscientific' but
> when it comes to credit it is really not in the name of the species, but
> the author names that go with the species name. So I might, for example,
> name a species Pfitzneriella antonkozlovi after the collector, but it is
> Pfitzeriella antonkozlovi Grehan & Mielke, 2018. It is the author name/s
> that claims credit for naming the species.
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 2:36 PM blaberus1 <g.beccaloni at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That is an odd argument to me at least! It seems like a flawed and
> > unscientific way of attributing kudos for an idea. The amount of credit
> > someone might receive is not necessarily correlated with the amount of
> > credit they deserve. In fact they may receive credit for ideas which they
> > didn't actually even discover or even claim they discovered! People may
> > have just got it wrong! Just because lots of people think something
> doesn't
> > mean it is correct - look at religion for example! Perhaps I need to
> study
> > this https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-discovery/ but it
> > might muddy the water even more!
> >
> > On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 18:43, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Even publication can be a thorny problem. One may publish on something
> >> but still not get credit, but someone else later does. Classic case is
> >> cladistics where Rosa seems to have 'discovered' the method, but it is
> >> Hennig's 'discovery' (unless he did plagiarize from Rosa which at
> present
> >> is impossible to know) that is generally credited. David Hull makes the
> >> argument that credit is what counts, not whether one is actually
> 'first' or
> >> not. There are earlier workers with 'natural selection' concepts, but
> >> Darwin made the most extensive argument at a time and place that
> resulted
> >> in his receiving the primary credit from subsequent researchers. Going
> back
> >> to 'wallacii' - we are taking about 'wallacii' in consequence of it
> being
> >> described as such rather than it being collected (although one led to
> the
> >> other in this instance). As Mike notes, Ali would not have been the
> first
> >> to collect a specimen, let alone recognize it as different, if he did.
> But
> >> Wallace went on record as making the distinction.
> >>
> >> John Grehan
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 1:31 PM blaberus1 <g.beccaloni at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In that case Darwin did not discover natural selection before Wallace,
> >>> since both men simultaneously published the theory. And no one can
> discover
> >>> anything without publishing the idea. My understanding of scientific
> >>> discovery is that the first person to realise that a concept, species
> etc
> >>> is new to SCIENCE (not to them personally) is the discoverer. You only,
> >>> however get credit for your discovery, if you publish it.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 18:23, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Seems to me that Ali discovered a specimen. It is the describer of the
> >>>> species that 'discovers' the species. Even if someone else may have
> already
> >>>> regarded the described species as a different species it is the
> describer
> >>>> wo makes the formal 'discovery'. One could say that some unknown
> species of
> >>>> Homo or even an australopithecine first 'discovered', for the sake of
> >>>> argument, the lion as a 'species' (assuming they had a species
> concept).
> >>>> And of course there are many known cases of species being first
> recognized
> >>>> and named by local cultures before they were described under the
> Linnaean
> >>>> system. 'S. wallacii' as a label did not exist until described. If the
> >>>> collector recognized the specimen as a distinct species then that
> person
> >>>> did make that discovery, but could then only be said to have
> discovered a
> >>>> specimen later designated as 'S. wallacii'.
> >>>>
> >>>> John Grehan
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 1:14 PM blaberus1 <g.beccaloni at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> It is becoming evident that my first message wasn't very clear! I
> know
> >>>>> that taxonomists can name new species after anyone they like and
> it's nice
> >>>>> to name them after people who might benefit in some way/be eternally
> >>>>> grateful etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So my more specific question is:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Does anyone consider a collector to be the discoverer of a species
> if
> >>>>> the collector did not realise it was new to science?"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So would it be correct to state in print "Ali discovered S.
> wallacii"?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> George
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 18:07, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I would agree in general principle to the 'greater good' - whatever
> >>>>>> seems most appropriate to the describer/s at the time. There is no
> rule
> >>>>>> book. I have one case of naming a species after a collector who was
> not the
> >>>>>> original collector of the specimen, but who received it from another
> >>>>>> collector, but brought it to my attention. I noticed that some of
> the names
> >>>>>> in the article were compound names. One of my colleagues has
> indicated to
> >>>>>> me a disinclination for such as they are often long and
> multisyllabic,
> >>>>>> increasing potential for misspellings and challenging
> pronunciation. But I
> >>>>>> have done so in a couple of cases where it was a condition of the
> collector
> >>>>>> to access and describe the specimens.
> >>>>>> John Grehan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:58 PM Shorthouse, David <
> >>>>>> davidpshorthouse at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ...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=WSPEC017&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.
>