Hello Neoorners,
There are probably a lot of people in this forum better placed to answer Andrew's question, but since it has remained remarkably silent, I am giving some input from my side.
To my knowledge there is no set of guiding rules about this issue, but from what I have seen published over the years I can however deduct the following:
- In many cases the existence of a new taxon is suspected long before it is described.
- In many cases birders bring in the first clues that we might be dealing with a new taxon, especially since voice has become such an important indicator of speciation, and voice knowledge and documentation has greatly improved among birders
- Voice alone is however considered insufficient to prove a new taxon. Morphological details, habits, nesting,... and ideally DNA should complete the overall picture to provide convincing proof
- The first person(s) who gather(s) all this information are generally the ones describing the new taxon. They have usually a scientific background, as collecting, DNA extraction and statistical analysis requires specific resources and knowledge
- When we are dealing with a genuinely new taxon (we are not talking here about uplifting subspecies to species level), the discovery of the new taxon is usually described.
- The discovery focuses on how the holotype was collected, and in the case the existence of the taxon was known prior to the collection of the holotype, this is also explained. In this paragraph, it is not uncommon to find the names of birders who had found, tape recorded or observed the taxon on previous dates.
- The person(s) describing the new taxon are entitled to give the scientific and English name
- Whether the new taxon is generally accepted by the community depends on how convincing the description is. For the Neotropics the authority of the SACC has grown over the years, and their judgment is generally accepted
(I am using here the terms 'birder' and 'scientist' as two extremes in a continuum, assuming that everybody knows there is no 'John sixpack' or whatever it is called in the US ;-)...)
When it comes to the description of the new Scytalopus from Peru, I start with saying I am probably biased, as I had also experience with this taxon prior to the collection of the holotype, and e.g. good quality recordings of both song and call taped prior to the collection date were published in my Peru sound collection (2009).
Therefore, the following is just an opinion.
- When reading the article my first reaction was similar to Andrew's. The knowledge of this taxon prior to the collection date seems to be absent. Either the authors were not aware of this knowledge (hard to believe as this would be lack of preparation when setting up an expedition), or it was largely ignored. (E.g., it is said song was totally unknown for a Scytalopus, in 'Distribution' the recordings in xeno-canto are mentioned, but it is not said many are prior to the collection date, etc.)
- The merit of the authors was I believe rather to discover that besides this taxon also S. macropus occurs in the same area, which had not been confirmed by birders.
- I would therefore personally have preferred to read more information on how the taxon was gradually discovered throughout the years as the Satipo valley opened up to birders and scientists alike, and how it was thanks to the recent fieldwork it was discovered this taxon is not closely related to S. macropus. This would have acknowledged the birders who started exploration over a decade ago, and would have confirmed the specific value of scientific field work in unraveling difficult issues. A missed chance for a 'best of both worlds' story.
Bringing up this topic may seem superfluous.
I remember however a case a few years ago in which a new taxon was named in a newspaper or magazine prior to its scientific description, raising the hair of many scientists.
Most birders are careful when dealing with potentially new taxa, often naming a bird for over a decade Scytalopus spec. nov. ... and refraining to write anything about it that may look like a formal description.
I believe in return, they should equally be respected for the exploring and discovering contribution they make.
Fortunately, the discussed article is rather an unfortunate exception...
Just like Andrew, I am obviously interested to hear if this is in line with the mainstream opinion of the community.
Kind regards,
Peter Boesman
Tangara AT skynet.be
