[Taxacom] Who should get the kudos?

[blaberus1]

Yes, that's what I think too. And Gray plagiarised Wallace's work by
quickly publishing a description which was based on a drawing of the bird
which Wallace made and sent to Stevens! See
http://wallace-online.org/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=WSPEC017&viewtype=text

On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 21:19, Robert Zuparko <rz at berkeley.edu> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>