[DMW]

Could anybody explain the ICZN rules on the use of photographs in describing new species? The Code states that where a species has been named on the basis of a photograph, the photograph itself cannot be a type, but the specimen depicted by the photograph can be.

Does this mean that a species can validly be named on the basis of a photograph of a wild bird which was only ever observed in the field, was never trapped, and for which no other material exists?

[thomasdonegan]

Article 72.5.6 of the Code states that: ‘In the case of a nominal species group taxon based on an illustration or description, or on a bibliographic reference to an illustration or description, the name-bearing type is the specimen or specimens illustrated or described (and not the illustration or description itself).’

Article 73.1.4 states that: ‘Designation of an illustration of a single specimen as a holotype is to be treated as designation of the specimen illustrated; the fact that the specimen no longer exists or cannot be traced does not of itself invalidate the designation’.

72.5.6 seems to envisage a description of the nature you mention being a valid nomenclatural act. 73.1.4 is key however and does not seem to apply to descriptions. Either way, such a description would probably be regarded as a nomen dubium until better data than field notes were supplied.

I have a current similar quandry with a new taxon which I have sound recorded but never captured, photographed or collected ...

[njlarsen]

See several threads on a certain Antpitta and the proposal to NACC for additional rules (that did not pass) to see just how controversial such a situation would be. In many journals, you would have difficulty getting such a description past reviewers and editors is my impression.

Niels

[Snapdragyn]

I think the point Niels makes is key here. We already have species described from illustrations (Neotropic Cormorant comes to mind), so I think the Code would not invalidate such a description. Getting it accepted for publication, however.... *shrug*

[DMW]

Thanks for the replies. Thomas, I’m very much a layman in this area, but as I read the Code it does seem to allow for the possibility of description from an illustration of a living wild bird. Perhaps you could make a sonogram of the recording of your new species, and publish this as an illustration of the type .

Niels, I am vaguely aware of the Great Colombian Antpitta Feud; I did pay a bit more attention to the AOU proposal, but this didn’t so much clarify the Code as try to usurp it!

The reason for my question stems from a paper in the latest edition of BirdingAsia, ‘An apparently new species of Rallina crake from Great Nicobar Island, India’, which contains two photographs of a bird in the wild. Notwithstanding the title, the paper asserts ‘Now that it is clear that there is an unknown species of rallid on Great Nicobar Island, SR will attempt to locate and study further individuals and describe it to science as soon as possible.’

While a very interesting discovery, it made me wonder what purpose the paper actually serves. The authors clearly assert that it is a new species, in which case why not actually go the extra mile and name it; if there insufficient material to do so, then why not wait until there is before publication?

[James Jobling]

I agree with your comments about the Great Nicobar Rallina. Common sense must prevail. Science needs a physical presence, a dead specimen or specimens which can be examined and evaluated. Photographs can be manipulated, so are worthless for that purpose.

[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by DMW

if there insufficient material to do so, then why not wait until there is before publication?

As a scientist, your job might depend on the number of publications you churn out, even if some of them are not that great. Secondly, it might be easier to get money for the next trip out there if you have a publication to point out that you did get something publishable out of the previous trip.

Disclaimer: I do not know who the authors were, this is purely speculative.

Niels

[DMW]

James, sorry to disappoint you, but if the option was available to the authors with the photographs and field descriptions, I wish they had formally described the species.

I fear that the euphemistic ‘formal designation as a new species should await availability of type material’ will likely involve the killing of one or more individuals of what may be a rare and endangered species. I sincerely hope the Indian authors will decide to follow the enlightened example of the description of Bugun Liocichla, and collect only feathers and blood samples.

Niels, I can understand the pressure on many academics to publish, but I doubt it’s a factor here. I’m certainly not criticising the standard of the paper, just wondering aloud what purpose is served by publishing a paper claiming discovery of a new species, but not actually describing it. On the other hand, if I was ever fortunate enough to make such a discovery, I’m sure I would want to brag about it too!

[GMK]

Originally Posted by DMW

While a very interesting discovery, it made me wonder what purpose the paper actually serves. The authors clearly assert that it is a new species, in which case why not actually go the extra mile and name it; if there insufficient material to do so, then why not wait until there is before publication?

Surely the purpose the article is quite obvious. To put down a marker that the persons concerned have discovered a new species, thereby preventing anyone with at least half an ounce of old-fashioned decency from stealing a march on them (see point 2 of the "Code of Ethics", which constitutes Appendix A of the Code). At the very least, if someone else was fortunate to reach the archipelago and acquire a specimen (by whatever means) they would (should) feel duty bound to involve some or all of the authors of the BirdingASIA article in describing the bird. (The same premise was true of the flowerpecker article also recently published in the same magazine.)

A short note of this type scarcely constitutes a scientific publication (so, effectively Duncan is quite correct), but it had the key benefit of being publishable swiftly.

[DMW]

Guy, not having the benefit of your experience in academic publishing, I must confess that this reason wasn’t obvious to me! As I’m sure you are aware, access to the Nicobars is highly restricted, and I think the opportunity for others to steal the authors’ thunder is probably close to nil.

The authors of the paper ‘describing’ (small ‘d’) the putative new Flowerpecker in Borneo wrote ‘we publish this account in the belief that the best way to obtain other records of this species…is by enlisting the help of ornithologists or birdwatchers living in and visiting Borneo.’ Given that the bird was observed from the canopy walkway at one of Borneo’s most popular birding spots, I take this at face value.

It would indeed be very poor form for somebody to publish a formal description of either of these birds without full involvement of the finders.

[njlarsen]

The paper mentioned above can be found in this thread: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=236967

Niels

[thomasdonegan]

A couple of observations here:

- I've described but not named new taxa on a few occasions. The main reason for this is often because an uppity peer reviewer or the authors deem available data insufficient (given the scrutiny that new names attach) but the authors still consider it worthwhile to put observations on record. I am always surprised at some peer reviewers apparently having no problem with someone calling out diagnostic features of a population and calling it a new taxon. However, those working with similar groups or in similar geographies seem to get very angry about other people naming things without unrealistic data sets. It is strange, because whilst a description and conclusion of diagnosability involve challengeable notions of science, naming is purely a socio-cultural phenomenon to which peer review comment should be irrelevant if the conclusions backing it up are sound.

- As for "preventing anyone with at least half an ounce of old-fashioned decency from stealing a march on them", that is certainly what should happen. However, I know of at least two new Colombian taxa where people to whom empathy is a foreign concept have attempted to take or are taking a selective view of who they would like to collaborate with in excluding the senior author or authors of papers describing but not naming new taxa from Colombia (refs below). It is important to have made a contribution though and one should be proud of that in these instances, even if only to science and taxonomy and not to socio-cultural phenomena!

Four undescribed taxa, at least one of which is affected by the above, were not named in this paper:
Donegan, TM & Avendaño-C JE. 2008. Notes on Tapaculos (Passeriformes: Rhinocryptidae) of the Eastern Andes of Colombia and Venezuelan Andes, with a new subspecies of Scytalopus griseicollis from Colombia. Ornitología Colombiana 6: 24-65
http://www.ornitologiacolombiana.org...nyavendano.pdf

One undescribed affected taxon was not named in this paper:
Salaman PGW, Donegan TM & Cuervo AM. 2002. New distributional bird records from Serranía de San Lucas and adjacent Central Cordillera of Colombia. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 122(4): 285-304.
http://www.museum.lsu.edu/cuervo/pub...s_BBOC2002.pdf

[Richard Klim]

A recent interesting case is 'Grant's Storm Petrel' - an undescribed species detailed by Robb et al 2008 (with photograph, colour plate and sound recordings/sonograms). Although it's commonplace to suggest a descriptive or geographical vernacular name for an undescribed species, it's less usual to pre-dedicate an undescribed species to someone via a proposed vernacular name. Presumably the authors would like the name (in memory of Peter Grant) to be reflected in the scientific name if and when anyone formally describes the taxon.

[Paul Mills]

How do you go about formally describing a taxon?

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by Paul Mills

How do you go about formally describing a taxon?

The Code (ICZN) lays down recommendations and rules. Rather heavy going, but the appendices outline the key principles.

[Paul Mills]

Thanks Richard

[Farnboro John]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

A recent interesting case is 'Grant's Storm Petrel' - an undescribed species detailed by Robb et al 2008 (with photograph, colour plate and sound recordings/sonograms). Although it's commonplace to suggest a descriptive or geographical vernacular name for an undescribed species, it's less usual to pre-dedicate an undescribed species to someone via a proposed vernacular name. Presumably the authors would like the name (in memory of Peter Grant) to be reflected in the scientific name if and when anyone formally describes the taxon.

A risky business too, not asking first (difficult in PJ's case I know). Cf Cox's Sandpiper....

John