[Taxacom] sufficient evidence for new species

[John Grehan]

with respect to the comment in particular that "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 ?"

I would agree that is a potential alternative. As noted in my other email
comment, I am making a subjective judgement call. If the specimens were
from an ecologically and geographically contiguous area I would take a
different approach and did this for a specimen from India where I and a
colleague published a descriptive paper because we could not definitively
conclude whether we had a new species or not (largely because type
specimens were not available to us).

John Grehan

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:09 AM Peter Rauch <peterar at berkeley.edu> wrote:

> 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 _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>