[Taxacom] sufficient evidence for new species

Fri Jan 25 07:44:15 CST 2019

Dear All,
       Yes, it would be a different story if these were plants.  In any case, John seems to have already decided to name species from a single specimen from some of these islands.  His concern is with just with the two in which the genitalia have not been preserved.
         As one who has done a lot of work identifying spiders, I would generally not recommend naming a spider species where the single specimen does not have the genitalia preserved.  However, it sounds like the mouthparts of these moths have enough structural variability that they could probably distinguish between most species based on that character alone.  Only time will tell, but naming those two species would bring more attention to the mouthparts.
                              ----------------Ken

________________________________
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Dr Brian Taylor <dr.brian.taylor at ntlworld.com>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 4:02 AM
To: Torbjörn Tyler; agosti
Cc: taxacom
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] sufficient evidence for new species

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.

_______________________________________________
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.