[Taxacom] sufficient evidence for new species

[Peter Rauch]

Wouldn't a paper (if credit for recognition of this particular situation,
and/or one more publication, are the objective) describing the case,
WITHOUT actually naming either specimen as a new species (arguably), be
sufficient ?

In that approach, there's no road clutter lying about on the taxonomic /
nomenclatural highway, while the discussion about moth labial palp
contributions to moth classification (species recognition) can be presented
formally and discussed more fully. Meanwhile, perhaps another specimen,
with genitalia (and palps), will materialize.....

Peter

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 5:44 AM Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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 _______________________________________________
>
>