Search the Taxacom archive · Browse by month · Mirror of the former lists.ku.edu archive (1992–2025)

[Taxacom] sufficient evidence for new species

John Grehan calabar.john at gmail.com
Fri Jan 25 11:31:17 CST 2019 

Many thanks to all have responded on list and off who have provided me with
some thoughtful reflection on my approach. Two issues have emerged in
addition to the one I raised. With the first, it is a matter of whether I
find sufficient distinction in a non-genitalic feature to go on that alone.
I have yet to see if that may be the case. I certainly agree with the main
point that it is better to have a series than a single specimen since there
is always the question of variability. In this particular case I have to
make a judgement call that may or may not be supported in the future. I
will have to make my best 'guess' and if it is not supported than, as noted
on this list, synonymy may result. I am dealing with moths (genus Aenetus)
that appear to have a low ecological dispersal capability in general (other
than the miraculous kind that may be invoked to explain their occurrence
thousands of miles apart) and I am dealing with specimens from different
islands of the Lesser Sunda. So if I find differences even for single
specimens on different islands it will be sufficient for me to predict a
different species (the large islands of New Zealand and New Caledonia each
have only a single species, but New Guinea has many).

Given their rarity of collection and advancing age I have determined that
it is better to name them now than not. Also, these specimens are expensive
(at least for me where hundreds of dollars are involved for any one
specimen) and I have been fortunate to have the collaboration of an
individual who can bear those costs and make the material available for
description. Its a sort of once in the lifetime opportunity so I am going
for it.

The last issue concerns gender. In this case for the most part the
specimens are of the same sex, but I have one island specimen that is a
male. If the females are all different on different islands then I am going
to guess that the male is different also even though I cannot make direct
genitalic comparison. At this time I also do not know how much palps differ
between sexes in this genus, but I am going to check with a colleague who
has worked on the group in other places.

Thanks again for all the interesting feedback. I am in a situation where I
do not have immediate contact with colleagues other than on the web so even
for such mundane and perhaps obvious questions such as this it is nice to
have that response.

John Grehan

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 8:44 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 _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>

More information about the Taxacom mailing list