[Taxacom] sufficient evidence for new species

[Donat Agosti]

Hi John
This analysis https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.3.e12502 of how many specimens are cited in taxonomic  treatments in a sample of recent publications indicates that you would not be the only scientist describing species based on a single (holotype) specimen.

"About a third of treatments (72 of all species treatments, 34 of new species descriptions) were based on a single specimen" . 

The relatively high number of treatments with only one specimen cited is not just an artifact. In fact, a raw analysis of 8.716  treatments of new species including a holotype in TreatmetBank shows that 26% of descriptions of new species are based only on one specimen, and 90% of such treatments include 9 or less specimens.

 
Donat

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of John Grehan
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 6:26 PM
To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: [Taxacom] sufficient evidence for new species

Dear colleagues,

I would be interested in any feedback opinion on what I admit might be taxonomic heresy but I am in a bit of a dilemma. I have a situation where I have single specimens of moths of the same genus, each from different islands (Indonesian Lesser Sunda). In some cases I have genitalic differences so there is no problem recognizing different species for each island. But in two cases the abdomen had decayed (due to tropical field conditions presumably) that the genitalia were not preserved. However, in the other species I have also noted differences in the mouthparts. If for the two decayed specimens their mouthparts (labial palps) were intact and showed distinct differences, is there any major problem my describing these as new species based on that difference? It seems to me that it would be just as valid as genitalia or even any other consistent different, although not usual practice.

These moths are extremely rarely caught (at light, although likely actually present in high numbers) and it has taken years to obtain the single specimens. Of course I could just wait until more specimens turn up, but then I am getting on in years and don't want to chance missing the opportunity. There is no overriding rule about this but I would be interested in reactions (even to anticipate what I might have to confront in due course). Many thanks. John Grehan _______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=01%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cb6adfcbb5dbe46778f7608d682210f6c%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0&sdata=irlEnU2ceVi%2B5gTald3L2JLCs2uAL13Fhmu6IWQ0Ogo%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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org&data=01%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cb6adfcbb5dbe46778f7608d682210f6c%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0&sdata=6AAIkhLYozc4JBm2Y9WAgqLl7Aj%2FlQ0GsP3YYelMr00%3D&reserved=0

Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.