[Taxacom] sufficient evidence for new species

Fri Jan 25 04:02:20 CST 2019

Hello,

The counter argument comes from my experience of now having identified
numerous ant specimens which had been described originally from a single
holotype, often more than 100 years ago. With the sterling work of those who
have photographed the type specimens, confirmation was even more certain. If
designating a new species from a single specimen was discouraged the next
taxonomist would have no way of knowing the species even existed. Yes, there
can be a problem with polymorphic species and linking sexuals with ant
workers (by far the commonest described forms) is difficult.

Botany may well have a major problem but not, I suspect, many fields of
zoology.

Cheers,

Brian 

On 25/01/2019, 08:12, "Torbjörn Tyler" <torbjorn.tyler at biol.lu.se> wrote:

> Hi!
> 
> I am a botanist, so I possibly face more problems with hybrids and genetically
> abarrant individuals than zoologists generally do, but my view on this, both
> personally and as editor of a major journal in the field, is that presumed
> taxa only known from a single individual should better not be described and
> named. At least as long as the single individual known has not been kept in
> cultivation, observed for a long time and been genetically investigated, the
> risk is far too large that a single individual with unusual morphology is a
> unicum, possibly a hybrid or genetically defect individual, rather than a
> member of stable population of a species.
> 
> Furthermore, I use to argue that since it is impossible to know anything about
> the range of variability of a taxon only known from a single specimen it is
> simply not possible to provide a morphological description of it that is
> useful. In my own research, I continiously have to struggle with taxa
> described from very scanty material and I have several cases with species that
> I feel I have to treat as if they have never been refound/recollected although
> there are modern collections of specimens that may possibly belong to these
> species but which are not identical in all respects with the original diagnose
> and type material and which I does not dare to identify as members of the old
> species (in particular not since that would have large implications for
> various conservation measures.
> 
> However, if you are publishing a revision/treatment of the relevant species,
> it may still of course be a good idea to briefly mention and describe whatever
> deviating specimens you may have, just to make people aware of their existance
> if or when similar specemens are recollected in the future.
> 
> Yours,
> Torbjörn
> 
> 
> 25 jan. 2019 kl. 08:30 skrev Donat Agosti
> <agosti at amnh.org<mailto:agosti at amnh.org>>:
> 
> 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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.markma
> il.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.
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> 
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to:
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, 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<mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Torbjörn Tyler, Ph.D,
> 
>  Curator at herbarium LD.
>  Editor in Chief of Nordic Journal of Botany.
> 
>  Responsible for the project The Hieracia of Sweden.
> 
> Postal address:
> Botanical Museum
> Box 117
> SE-221 00 Lund
> 
> Address for parcels and visitors:
> ArkivCentrum Syd
> Porfyrvägen 20
> SE-224 78 Lund
> 
> tel. +46 (0)46-222 42 34 (automatically re-directing to my mobile)
> 
> 
> e-mail: torbjorn.tyler[at]biol.lu.se<http://biol.lu.se>
> 
> Private address: Enningervägen 12, SE-243 31 Höör (=Hoeoer), Sweden
> ___________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send
> Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
For list
> information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, 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
The Taxacom
> email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org

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