[Taxacom] New species descriptions based on only 1 specimen

Wed Oct 1 06:28:58 CDT 2008

Zack, Jean-Michel, et alia,

Are all CORRECT. The bottom line is simply to make knowledge available to others. We do that in biology by providing a formal name for our species / taxonomic hypotheses / whatever.

More 80 years William Morton Wheeler opened a nest of Azteca ants he found on Barro Colorado Island in Panama. Besides the ants he found lots of small little fly maggots. He, when he published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences, admitted he did not know what these maggots were, but decided it was best to described them so other biologists would know that there was something strange in Azteca nests and perhaps some future biologist would solved the mystery that he could not by rearing the strange maggots.

Today we still do not know what Nothomicrodon aztecarum Wheeler (his name for the maggots) is, but I am glad Wheeler left us with a challenge.

So, PUBLISH given that your sample is sufficient to properly characterized the species / hypothesis.

Cheers

F. Christian Thompson
Systematic Entomology Lab., ARS, USDA
c/o Smithsonian Institution MRC-0169
PO Box 37012
Washington, D. C. 20013-7012
(202) 382-1800 voice
(202) 786-9422 fax
Chris.Thompson at ars.usda.gov 
www.diptera.org Diptera Website
-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of murrellze
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 10:20 PM
To: Jean-Michel Maes
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New species descriptions based on only 1 specimen

If we view names as a way to "red-flag" a putative clade/species, then 
it seems best to name it, if you know the "known" or published diversity 
in the parent clade/genus .  Then others (ecologists, population 
biologists) can realize a need to examine the new putative species (i.e. 
test your hypothesis).

Zack Murrell

Jean-Michel Maes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Difficult to answer by yes or no. In theory, it's not a good idea to
> describe a species on 1 specimen. But... In the case of a revision, better
> to describe the species available, even if there is only one specimen, so
> all species are available to play with. Another person can find the way to
> rear the species or to collect more and confirm the validity of the species
> or put it as a synonym of another species. I know it's not an election, but
> my vote would be to describe the species, even on an orphan specimen.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jean-Michel.
>
> Dr. Jean-Michel MAES
> MUSEO ENTOMOLOGICO
> AP 527
> LEON
> NICARAGUA
> tel 505-3116586
> cel 505-48-11-351
> jmmaes at ibw.com.ni
> jmmaes at bio-nica.info
> jmmaes at yahoo.com
> jmmaes at walla.com
>
> www.bio-nica.info (main page in spanish)
> http://360.yahoo.com/jmmaes
> http://www.ibw.com.ni/u/jmmaes (pequeña pagina de contacto)
> http://espanol.groups.yahoo.com/group/MEL-Info/ (lista de anuncios - puede
> inscribirse si le parece)
> www.avesnicaragua.org (aves)
> http://www.coleoptera.org/p1760.htm (Lucanidae genera)
>
> Save a tree. Do not print this message if not really necessary
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Geoff Read" <g.read at niwa.co.nz>
> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 5:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New species descriptions based on only 1 specimen
>
>
>   
>>>>> On 1/10/2008 at 8:17 a.m., Steve Lingafelter
>>>>>           
>> <steve.lingafelter at ars.usda.gov>
>> wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi Taxacomers,
>>> I realize this is a tired debate, but nevertheless...
>>>
>>> I'm interested in some current opinions.  I am at the final stages of
>>>       
>> data
>>     
>>> collection for a field guide to Dominican Republic
>>>       
>> Cerambycidae...however,
>>     
>>> I've got a handful of very charismatic new species which are sadly,
>>>       
>> after 10
>>     
>>> expeditions (4 by our group; several by Carnegie Museum and
>>>       
>> Harvard),
>>     
>>> represented by only 1 specimen each.
>>>
>>> I want to describe them and have them available for the field guide
>>>       
>> but I
>>     
>>> realize this is not an ideal situation (and I believe not accepted by
>>>       
>> some
>>     
>>> journals).  Am I making a mountain out of a mole-hill, and should I
>>>       
>> just
>>     
>>> describe the darned things?
>>>
>>> What would you do?
>>>       
>> No, it's certainly not mountain out of mole-hill. It's a serious issue.
>> I wouldn't never do it, but best avoided in annelids, the group I work
>> with, because of meristic and developmental changes, and also noting the
>> difficulty of borrowing a holotype with no paratype. Also there is the
>> possibility a strange individual is a teratology and not new at all.
>> Incomplete tail-less specimens are a particular problem for later
>> workers when described - as has been done frequently, but against that
>> there are families in which complete individuals from offshore benthos
>> are almost never collected - can't just ignore a whole family.
>>
>> Here's a paper discussing species description standards which inter
>> alia addresses the single specimen problem:
>>
>> Mąkol, J. ; Gabryś, G. 2005:  Intuition or fixed criteria – about
>> standards in species description.  Genus 16(4): 503-511.
>>
>> http://www.biol.uni.wroc.pl/cassidae/Fixed%20criteria.pdf
>>
>> Geoff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>  Geoff Read <g.read at niwa.co.nz>
>>    http://www.annelida.net/
>>   http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncabb/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom mailing list
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> This message has been processed by Firetrust Benign.
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>   