Is avian taxonomy still dependent on ongoing specimen collection? (4 Viewers)

[l_raty]

An illustration is never a type specimen; it's the illustrated organism that it the type (whether preserved or not). There is no fundamental difference between a description and an illustration (in the sense of a drawing/painting) -- both are man-made accounts of what an observed organism looked like.
Here, the types are the birds that he saw in the field, because they formed the base of his description and concept. The specimens are lost, but this does not invalidate the name.

 

[Kratter]

An illustration is never a type specimen; it's the illustrated organism that it the type (whether preserved or not). There is no fundamental difference between a description and an illustration (in the sense of a drawing/painting) -- both are man-made accounts of what an observed organism looked like.
Here, the types are the birds that he saw in the field, because they formed the base of his description and concept. The specimens are lost, but this does not invalidate the name.

Thanks! I have been wrong for many years...

 

[DLane]

It is perfectly Code-compliant, Andy, I'm afraid. On which base would you reject it?

Andy, see the following paper by Oberholser (1920) for the reasoning that the AOU accepted "saxatalis" over "melanoleucus":
https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v037n02/p0294-p0295.pdf

We all know that there are several old names that are not tied to physical holotypes (although I am rather taken aback by the complete lack of any declared type in Woodhouse's description!), but the ICZN makes it clear that modern (post-1999) names must have a declared type:

"16.4. Species-group names: fixation of name-bearing types to be explicit. Every new specific and subspecific name published after 1999, except a new replacement name (a nomen novum), for which the name-bearing type of the nominal taxon it denotes is fixed automatically [Art. 72.7], must be accompanied in the original publication

16.4.1. by the explicit fixation of a holotype, or syntypes, for the nominal taxon [Arts. 72.2, 72.3, 73.1.1, 73.2 and Recs. 73A and 73C], and,

16.4.2. where the holotype or syntypes are extant specimens, by a statement of intent that they will be (or are) deposited in a collection and a statement indicating the name and location of that collection (see Recommendation 16C)."

So, happily, this relieves us of the concern of an entirely imagined taxon being described without physical evidence.

 

[Nutcracker]

... the ICZN makes it clear that modern (post-1999) names must have a declared type ...

So, happily, this relieves us of the concern of an entirely imagined taxon being described without physical evidence.

Nessiteras rhombopteryx Scott & Rines, 1975 (original) is pre-1999

 

[thomasdonegan]

Lots to talk about here;

Nessiteras rhombopteryx Scott & Rines, 1975 (original) is pre-1999

I don't know a lot about plesiosaurs .... but Figure 3 does look a hell of a lot like a diving cormorant, which would place Nessie into synonymy with Phalacrocorax carbo, a common bird species in this area.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=d...ved=0ahUKEwi7qJ-wocPOAhXBEywKHd6eDXsQ_AUIBigB

DLane, you should read this.

http://iczn.org/faqs
Can a photograph or holograph be a type specimen?
No, but the specimen depicted can be. Where a species name has been based on a photograph, illustration or description, the name-bearing type is considered to be the specimen(s) illustrated or described (Article 72.5.6; 73.1.4) the fact that the specimen is no longer extant does not mean that the species name is unavailable. While it is highly desirable to have a type specimen or part of a specimen permanently deposited in a museum or other publicly available collection, very occasionally it may be impractical, for example if it is unethical to kill or injure an individual of a highly endangered mammal. Other forms of evidence e.g. photographs, sonograms, may contribute to an original description in demonstrating that a type specimen existed, where the type specimen has to be released live. In these situations it is not necessary to deposit types in a Museum - the statement of intent to deposit types in a collection required for new species names published after 1999 is only necessary where types are extant (Article 16.4.2).

The LSU interpretation of the Code is not the one that many of the current ICZN Commissioners or Secretariat adhere to. But then again, some of the people most fervently pushing your interpretation of the code are co-authors of the rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker - who must know a lot about using photography to make ridiculous claims. (In Science, rather than Nature, that one.) :-O

 

[Nutcracker]

I don't know a lot about plesiosaurs .... but Figure 3 does look a hell of a lot like a diving cormorant, which would place Nessie into synonymy with Phalacrocorax carbo, a common bird species in this area.

:-O I think there's a roughly x40 size discrepancy there . . . the most convincing evidence I've seen would synonymise it with Pinus sylvestris (decaying sunken Scots Pine logs) :t:

 

[l_raty]

So, happily, this relieves us of the concern of an entirely imagined taxon being described without physical evidence.

A step has probably been done in this direction. Still, under the present wording:

- A holotype or syntypes need(s) not be (an) extant specimen(s) and, if not extant, no statement that it/they will be deposited anywhere is needed.
- Art. 16.4.2 only requires a statement of intent that the types be deposited in a collection, it doesn't require that this is actually done. (And it cannot be read as implying this. The availability of a nomenclatural act is always forever, and can never depend on issues that are not settled in the publication. [Or, for e-only publications, in the ZooBank registration.] If a specimen gets lost or destroyed before it is deposited, this cannot result in a name becoming unavailable retroactively.)
- A 'collection', in the sense of Art. 16.4.2, doesn't need to be in a museum or even in a publicly accessible place; see the definition of this word in the Glossary. If you declare the basement of your house to be 'your private collection' and state your intent to deposit your type specimens there, you are not violating the Code. Even if you allow only your cat to see these specimens for the next 45 years.


It may be enlightening to contrast the requirements of 16.4 with those of 75.3 (neotype designation). Viz:

"75.3. Qualifying conditions. A neotype is validly designated when [...] the designation is published with the following particulars:
[...]
75.3.3. data and description sufficient to ensure recognition of the specimen designated;
[...]
75.3.7. a statement that the neotype is, or immediately upon publication has become, the property of a recognized scientific or educational institution, cited by name, that maintains a research collection, with proper facilities for preserving name-bearing types, and that makes them accessible for study."

This represent a real attempt to make sure that a preserved physical name-bearing specimen exists and will remain available for study for as long as long as possible. A specimen designated as neotype must be made recognisable as such; a statement of deposition is always required, not just in cases where the specimen would be extant; what is required is not a statement of intent, but one of actual deposition; as a corollary, the specimen must indeed be extant; the collection must be one that is institutional, able to preserve the specimen and that will make it accessible for study.
All of these requirements do not apply to holotype or syntypes. The only likely reason for this being that the Code really does not intend to preclude the description of a new taxon in cases where satisfying any of them would be impracticable.

 

[thomasdonegan]

Nature paper on descriptions based on photographs

This brief paper has been signed off by many current and former ICZN commissioners:

Article:
http://www.nature.com/articles/5373...xTyn6VZRNkUdv1H4BZgYW9jTxvXMlMnW3-MIrmRADJUYE

Author list:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v537/n7620/extref/537307b-s1.pdf

 

[l_raty]

This brief paper has been signed off by many current and former ICZN commissioners

Thanks Thomas. If anyone want to download the pdf and keep it for future reference, this can be done [here].

This came as a reply to the following editorial note:

Anonymous. 2016. Virtual taxonomy. People everywhere are catching Pokémon. Can they also catch real new species? Nature 535:323-324.
[whole text and pdf here]

 

[jurek]

Anonymous. 2016. Virtual taxonomy. People everywhere are catching Pokémon. Can they also catch real new species? Nature 535:323-324.
[whole text and pdf here]

There is indeed that giant Drosea carnivorous plant in Brazil, which was discovered thanks to some hiker's smartphone photo.

Maybe whether a species can be discovered exclusively on a smartphone is not that important. But several billions of people using smartphones could become citizen scientists recording rare plants or animals... Birders, botanists or entomologists can never cover so much ground.

It would perhaps need a software doing at least broad identification, similar to software recognizing people's faces. Maybe an app can identify eg. butterflies or flowers. These tend to be big, flat, colorful and have well described diagnostic differences.

 

[l_raty]

Ceríaco, Dubois, Gutiérrez et al. 2016. Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences. Zootaxa 4196(3):435–445.
[full article here] (and also [here])

(This was initially submitted to Nature as a rebuttal (this is the word that they used) to the note mentioned by Thomas in [post #128], but not accepted for publication there.)

 

[lewis20126]

New Myrmeciza Antbird

The new Antbird at Platforma, Peru has been seen by several recent birding groups but it's harder to see that it was. There are only two known territories left with I'm told two pairs (4 birds) being collected by a well known collector. Whilst the Antbird is likely to be more widespread, this is as yet unknown. So,as I understand it, we have a situation in which the collector has removed probably 50% of the known world population of the Antbird. I don't think that is acceptable but perhaps he would like to explain himself and convince people otherwise.

cheers, alan

 

[Frenchy]

New Myrmeciza Antbird

The new Antbird at Platforma, Peru has been seen by several recent birding groups but it's harder to see that it was. There are only two known territories left with I'm told two pairs (4 birds) being collected by a well known collector. Whilst the Antbird is likely to be more widespread, this is as yet unknown. So,as I understand it, we have a situation in which the collector has removed probably 50% of the known world population of the Antbird. I don't think that is acceptable but perhaps he would like to explain himself and convince people otherwise.

cheers, alan

Makes the Guadalcanal incident look positively insignificant!

 

[MTem]

New Myrmeciza Antbird

The new Antbird at Platforma, Peru has been seen by several recent birding groups but it's harder to see that it was. There are only two known territories left with I'm told two pairs (4 birds) being collected by a well known collector. Whilst the Antbird is likely to be more widespread, this is as yet unknown. So,as I understand it, we have a situation in which the collector has removed probably 50% of the known world population of the Antbird. I don't think that is acceptable but perhaps he would like to explain himself and convince people otherwise.

cheers, alan

Yes please, whoever you are do tell...... and imagine you're being interviewed on TV....

 

[DLane]

New Myrmeciza Antbird

The new Antbird at Platforma, Peru has been seen by several recent birding groups but it's harder to see that it was. There are only two known territories left with I'm told two pairs (4 birds) being collected by a well known collector. Whilst the Antbird is likely to be more widespread, this is as yet unknown. So,as I understand it, we have a situation in which the collector has removed probably 50% of the known world population of the Antbird. I don't think that is acceptable but perhaps he would like to explain himself and convince people otherwise.

cheers, alan

Oh dear, dear Allen,

My better nature tells me not to rise to this bait, because it’s clear you’re trying to lure me in for an anti-collecting kill. But, it’s very hard not to see your posts as those of a high school gossip who’s greatest joy is trying to tear others down with misinformation. First the silly "Owlet Lodge antpitta" farce, now this...

I don’t know where you got your figure of only four known territories, and I’d LOVE to know where you got “harder to see that (sic) it was”! It was MUCH harder to see before collectors arrived there. In fact, it had been seen once, by one person (Josh Beck, the discoverer), on the day before our arrival at the site (and we didn't know about it until we arrived)! It’s since been seen by, oh, I don’t know, perhaps 50 people? That sounds like it is exponentially *easier* to see after our visit than before to me. Those 50 people visited two of the territories we located and left unmolested—the two closest to town and on the easiest walking trails, so tourists could get to them, mind you—but we found many additional territories farther away and in more difficult terrain. Add to that the fact that Plataforma (or Flor de Café, as the community prefers to be called) was actively felling the forest immediately around those territories, very likely taking those forest patches soon enough (they were literally cutting trees down in the next chacra over while we were there, and another large new chacra had been felled shortly prior and adjacent to one of the territories) while we were there, and I think you’ll see that your attempt to rile up others in a public forum with a claim of a loss of “50% of the known world population” to scientific collecting is incredibly naive, alarmist, and misguided.

Please see below a screen grab from Google Earth. The red dot is Flor de Café. The big green area is Cordillera Azul National Park (which, by the way, was established in large part because of the work—including collecting—that LSU and the Field Museum did there 1996-2001). That area is more than half the size of Wales. You mean to tell me that it makes sense to you that there were only eight individual birds of this species in that whole area? Really?

OK, you seem to like to call people out with a challenge. So, I ask this of you: when you go to see the bird, as you have said you will, don’t go visit the two easiest territories to reach. Heck, by the time you get there, they’ll probably be taped out anyway (can’t blame that on collectors!). Instead, go on the trail that leads to the community reserve that is several km to the south—a hellish trail of mud pockmarked with mule tracks and urine—and search there. When you find one of the territories there (which, if you have any mad birding skillz, you should be able to do without much trouble) you will make a reasonable donation (say $5000… no doubt you’ll pay as much to go see the bird!) to a Peruvian not-for-profit organization called CORBIDI. CORBIDI was the organization that is responsible for the publication and distribution of the Spanish language version of the “Birds of Peru” field guide, a Spanish language version of David Sibley’s “Birding Basics,” a nascent Peruvian birding magazine called “Avistando,” several bird ringing programs, and studies in many other disciplines in addition. Its website is here: http://www.corbidi.org/index.html
This is an organization that has been organizing and promoting biological study, assisting students with research and training, citizen science, and birding within Peru on less than a shoestring budget, and your donation would be very helpful to promote such activities. In other words, put your money where your cakehole is!

If you’re going to take potshots at people who are dedicating their free time to trying to improve our understanding of the diversity of birds on this planet, at least do something positive yourself. Give back, and promote conservation and birding elsewhere. And for crissake, stop fabricating gossip, Regina! [that was a reference to the movie Mean Girls, by the way]

Cheers,
Dan

P.S: Oh yes, I almost forgot: Bugun Liocichla to you too.

P.P.S.: Oh, but then again, Strix omanensis, Forpus flavicollis, and Laniarius libertatus, as well. That’s a 75% worse track record for species described without holotypes...

 

[pbjosh]

Alan,

Thank you for chiming in with your wealth of knowledge and unbiased opinion.

It was I who discovered the new Myrmoderus sp and want to correct some of your misinformation such that you have the option of basing your opinions on fact, at least.

I, and others who have gone since, (though apparently not your trusty sources who struggled to find the bird) can account for a large number of territories and individuals. The two territories closest to Plataforma were left undisturbed in order to make the bird as easy to see as possible for visiting birders. The day after I found the bird, and immediately after I showed the others the first territory, it took two of us all of about an hour to find a second pair. One of the more remote territories where birds were collected had a singing male occupying the territory again within days. A friend recently visited and, rather than going to the best known territory, explored for himself and found 3 additional territories that I had not previously been aware of. Any difficulties in finding the bird recently (and none of my friends who have visited have struggled) can be attributed to abuse of playback, bad luck, or any other way one can dip when they are led directly to a territory but come up empty. If any of us had thought there was any risk that these were the last individuals on earth, there is no chance they would have been collected. Given the habitat available in the area, there is no concern for this species due to the collection of a few individuals.

I find it disheartening that you seek to discredit and slander the science community that works to understand, describe, and protect our planet’s biodiversity. We are theoretically all on the same page and all want the same thing, unless you are the outlying birder who does not believe in conservation?

I wouldn’t ask you to approve of collecting, everyone is welcome to make a moral decision there. But I can assure you that in an intact, unpressured ecosystem, gaining or losing a trivial number of individuals has no impact. If every taxa walked a fine line where the loss of a few individuals could tip the scales toward extinction, life would not continue. However, loss of intact, unpressured habitat is what makes a difference. Again, you don’t have to like collecting, but it is patently false to suggest that the Myrmoderus sp nov is at risk of extinction due to collection. I can assure you that the bird remains locally common, and that deforestation and climate change are the actual threats that it will face.

I work on conservation issues continuously, and donate what I can. I am currently working to generate interest in a community based conservation effort in Flor de Café. I do not know if I will be successful, but I am trying. If you wish to continue to slander those who are working to understand and protect the natural world, by all means continue. I will continue to actually work on conservation.

Cheers from Bolivia,
Josh Beck

 

[DMW]

I find it incredible that you guys try to link creation of protected areas with on-going collection of whole-bird specimens, or imply that killing birds for 'science' is a necessary component of conservation. It's the 21st century... documenting avian diversity has never been easier. Can you honestly say that it is not possible to inventory a location's biodiversity to the point that you can advocate creation of a protected area, without collecting? Can you honestly argue a credible case that describing a relatively cryptic new species will have any contribution to conservation whatsoever?

 

[lewis20126]

Oh dear, dear Allen,

My better nature tells me not to rise to this bait, because it’s clear you’re trying to lure me in for an anti-collecting kill. But, it’s very hard not to see your posts as those of a high school gossip who’s greatest joy is trying to tear others down with misinformation. First the silly "Owlet Lodge antpitta" farce, now this...

I don’t know where you got your figure of only four known territories, and I’d LOVE to know where you got “harder to see that (sic) it was”! It was MUCH harder to see before collectors arrived there. In fact, it had been seen once, by one person (Josh Beck, the discoverer), on the day before our arrival at the site (and we didn't know about it until we arrived)! It’s since been seen by, oh, I don’t know, perhaps 50 people? That sounds like it is exponentially *easier* to see after our visit than before to me. Those 50 people visited two of the territories we located and left unmolested—the two closest to town and on the easiest walking trails, so tourists could get to them, mind you—but we found many additional territories farther away and in more difficult terrain. Add to that the fact that Plataforma (or Flor de Café, as the community prefers to be called) was actively felling the forest immediately around those territories, very likely taking those forest patches soon enough (they were literally cutting trees down in the next chacra over while we were there, and another large new chacra had been felled shortly prior and adjacent to one of the territories) while we were there, and I think you’ll see that your attempt to rile up others in a public forum with a claim of a loss of “50% of the known world population” to scientific collecting is incredibly naive, alarmist, and misguided.

Please see below a screen grab from Google Earth. The red dot is Flor de Café. The big green area is Cordillera Azul National Park (which, by the way, was established in large part because of the work—including collecting—that LSU and the Field Museum did there 1996-2001). That area is more than half the size of Wales. You mean to tell me that it makes sense to you that there were only eight individual birds of this species in that whole area? Really?

OK, you seem to like to call people out with a challenge. So, I ask this of you: when you go to see the bird, as you have said you will, don’t go visit the two easiest territories to reach. Heck, by the time you get there, they’ll probably be taped out anyway (can’t blame that on collectors!). Instead, go on the trail that leads to the community reserve that is several km to the south—a hellish trail of mud pockmarked with mule tracks and urine—and search there. When you find one of the territories there (which, if you have any mad birding skillz, you should be able to do without much trouble) you will make a reasonable donation (say $5000… no doubt you’ll pay as much to go see the bird!) to a Peruvian not-for-profit organization called CORBIDI. CORBIDI was the organization that is responsible for the publication and distribution of the Spanish language version of the “Birds of Peru” field guide, a Spanish language version of David Sibley’s “Birding Basics,” a nascent Peruvian birding magazine called “Avistando,” several bird ringing programs, and studies in many other disciplines in addition. Its website is here: http://www.corbidi.org/index.html
This is an organization that has been organizing and promoting biological study, assisting students with research and training, citizen science, and birding within Peru on less than a shoestring budget, and your donation would be very helpful to promote such activities. In other words, put your money where your cakehole is!

If you’re going to take potshots at people who are dedicating their free time to trying to improve our understanding of the diversity of birds on this planet, at least do something positive yourself. Give back, and promote conservation and birding elsewhere. And for crissake, stop fabricating gossip, Regina! [that was a reference to the movie Mean Girls, by the way]

Cheers,
Dan

P.S: Oh yes, I almost forgot: Bugun Liocichla to you too.

P.P.S.: Oh, but then again, Strix omanensis, Forpus flavicollis, and Laniarius libertatus, as well. That’s a 75% worse track record for species described without holotypes...

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

So, tell me, how many territories had you detected before you collected the specimens? I'd really love to know. How did you get into that "difficult to reach terrain"? How many have you found in the national park?

Bugun Liocichla - that must really hurt.

cheers, a

 

[DMW]

Citing Strix omanensis in your game of top-trumps seems a little bit like shooting yourself in the foot. The existence of 2 species of Strix in the Middle East was established despite the existence of specimen material, not because of it. Had Robb et al not heard and recorded their 'new' owl, we would still think there was a single species of Strix... despite the existence of skins in various museum drawers.

 

[MTem]

I find it incredible that you guys try to link creation of protected areas with on-going collection of whole-bird specimens, or imply that killing birds for 'science' is a necessary component of conservation. It's the 21st century... documenting avian diversity has never been easier. Can you honestly say that it is not possible to inventory a location's biodiversity to the point that you can advocate creation of a protected area, without collecting? Can you honestly argue a credible case that describing a relatively cryptic new species will have any contribution to conservation whatsoever?

DLane, Josh,

First of all thanks for the full responses - it can only help if we try to understand each others perspectives given I suspect our basic objectives and intent are common. In common with many I suspect, I seriously thought we had given this collecting lark up along with bear baiting, so all this is a bit of a shock.

So could you please go on to answer DMW's point above please - why would photographs, video, feather and blood samples, field sampling and notes, etc., not suffice in the conservation debate? What EXACTLY do you get in addition to these non-lethal measures with a dead bird? And more significantly what do you NOT get if you leave it be, and is that missing element really THAT important to justify it's death, especially in this case when it seems a long-term viable population had not been established as existing?

Please....

Mick