[Taxacom] De-extinction & Rhachistia aldabrae

Kenneth Kinman kinman at hotmail.com
Thu Oct 16 11:37:37 CDT 2014

Hi Stephen,                         Perhaps you could downgrade this new "species" to subspecies status.  That would not be "purely negative", and hopefully you could get your note published that way.                           -------Ken                 P.S.  By the way, does the term de-extinction apply in the case of the rediscovered snail?  I thought de-extinction applied to bringing back an extinct species by artificial means (as has been proposed for woolly mammoths or the passenger pigeon).  I think that I would call the rediscovered snail a Lazarus taxon.   

> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 18:14:44 -0700
> From: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; gread at actrix.gen.nz
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] De-extinction & Rhachistia aldabrae
> Yes, I have a vaguely similar case from N.Z., where a new species of beetle (medium sized and flightless) has just been described on the flimsiest of evidence (and I have some definite, but inconclusive, evidence against it being a new species), claimed to be restricted to one tiny location and sparse even there. My attempts to publish a short note to flag the issue hit a brick wall. My note was rejected as being "purely negative" and "contributing nothing". Well, given that conservation resources are limited, and that there is a pot of money for research in such species of potential conservation concern, I would say that it is very important to point out the flaws in relevant published taxonomy. Without such scrutiny, taxonomists could manufacture "new species" just to get hold of said conservation funding. My evidence against this beetle means that there is no way to recognise it (either morphologically or geographically), which makes the assessment of
>  its conservation status a bit tricky!
> Stephen
> --------------------------------------------
> On Thu, 16/10/14, Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>  Subject: [Taxacom] De-extinction & Rhachistia aldabrae
>  To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>  Received: Thursday, 16 October, 2014, 1:34 PM
>  A cautionary tale if your study
>  critters are a little on the small side.
>  http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/10/10/20140771
>  http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/41223/title/Snail-Revival-Raises-Peer-Review-Debate/
>  Geoff
>  --
>  Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
>  Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
>  gread at actrix.gen.nz
>  _______________________________________________

More information about the Taxacom mailing list