[Taxacom] Who should get the kudos?

[blaberus1]

Well, there is no evidence Ali thought it was a species new to science and
he couldn't read the bird book Wallace had with him i.e. Bonaparte's
Conspectus Avium, as he was illiterate. The book contains no illustrations
and has concise Latin descriptions of the world's birds. Wallace used it as
his field guide and he must have been a genius as he was able to identify
many/most of the species he came across with it.

On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 21:04, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

> If Ali explicitly stated that it was a new species then I would say that
> he could be viewed as the first (documented) discoverer. And even if that
> were the case it would not change anything about the species name which has
> been properly established as wallacii. Seems to be two different issues -
> who is first on record (have to emphasize that) as recognizing it as a
> distinct species, and who first named it as such in publication.
>
> John Grehan
>
> 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.
>>>>
>>>