Undescribed (2 Viewers)

[jurek]

Jurek, that's a bit like predicting there are likely to be undescribed tapaculos in Peru - not exactly Mystic Meg levels of prescience!

Sure, very easy, only nobody did it before.

But I dream ofr having a bird species named after me, so if somebody finds this missing owlet-nightjar in New Britain, pleaseplaseplase

This article from 2003 by Nigel Collar provides a useful guide to discovering species in Asia:

Hi, but this article is not about discovering new birds, it is about splitting known species into several.

 

[Ficedula]

Millionaire-less, would have been a better option.

By the way - the Lombok Owl study had zero funding. One published examination of the average cost of a species description found that it was around $50,000. I would guess that approximately 6-9 months in total was spent on Lombok Owl - field visits, museum visits, analysis and writing for the article; so around $50,000 in-kind [Unpaid] contribution is probably a reasonable ballpark...

really? well I've described about 15 species so that would be three quarters of a million. as i have never had any funding for this, and it is not my job, i think i must have done it significantly cheaper. Of course these are not birds but flies, but the amount of research needed is not much different, indeed sorting out nomenclatorial problems is probably harder for insects as avian nomenclature is largely sorted.

 

[dnsallen]

... and you are worth every penny, Dave!

 

[Ficedula]

... and you are worth every penny, Dave!

just send cash

 

[dnsallen]

Sadly I spent all my remaining pennies on my last description :-C

 

[Millionaire-ess]

Its a little bit more than that, see the section "Voice, islands and mountains"...

Sure, very easy, only nobody did it before.

But I dream ofr having a bird species named after me, so if somebody finds this missing owlet-nightjar in New Britain, pleaseplaseplase



Hi, but this article is not about discovering new birds, it is about splitting known species into several.

 

[Paul Mills]

But I dream ofr having a bird species named after me, so if somebody finds this missing owlet-nightjar in New Britain, pleaseplaseplase

Hi, bit off topic, I respect your wishes, but fail to understand why anyone thinks one of natures creations should be named after any person. And names like Pallas's Warbler, sound like the "possesion of" Pallas, or his invention, when he was merely the first person to formally descibe it within Linnean boundaries. People had already seen them before, so its hardly pioneering ground, worthy of such adulation. And if kept, should it not be in descriptive form, Pallas Warbler or Pallasian Warbler? Warbler found by Pallas, not a Warbler belonging to Pallas. Niether do I understand the point of wanting your name lingering on after we have gone, I thought the pure biologist was motivated by love of nature, not a human pat on the back.

 

[lewis20126]

. People had already seen them before, so its hardly pioneering ground, worthy of such adulation.

You raise a lot of points but I'll make just one in response. How do you know that this is the case? You've just made an assumption. Even if inhabitants of Siberia, China or Thailand had "seen" the birds, how do you know they had realised that "they were different" from other small bird species? Without and until formal description, everything prior is speculation.

cheers, alan

 

[Richard Klim]

Pallas's Warbler

Hi, bit off topic, I respect your wishes, but fail to understand why anyone thinks one of natures creations should be named after any person. And names like Pallas's Warbler, sound like the "possesion of" Pallas, or his invention, when he was merely the first person to formally descibe it within Linnean boundaries. People had already seen them before, so its hardly pioneering ground, worthy of such adulation. And if kept, should it not be in descriptive form, Pallas Warbler or Pallasian Warbler? Warbler found by Pallas, not a Warbler belonging to Pallas.

But the permanent specific epithet in this case is proregulus (kinglet-like). 'Pallas's (Leaf) Warbler' is nothing more than an English vernacular name in common usage at this period in history, and might be replaced by an alternative according to the whims of future generations. I doubt that Pallas knew (or cared) that future English-speaking ornithologists would invent the name 'Pallas's Warbler'! (The German name, Goldhähnchen-Laubsänger, doesn't honour Pallas.)

Niether do I understand the point of wanting your name lingering on after we have gone, I thought the pure biologist was motivated by love of nature, not a human pat on the back.

Describers never name taxa after themselves. But they may choose to honour another deserving individual.

 

[lewis20126]

Niether do I understand the point of wanting your name lingering on after we have gone, .

There are few ways of achieving any form of immortality! As Richard has pointed out, the English name is not one of them; the scientific name is however one which offers greater potential. I suppose it depends on whether you value the concept of legacy and if so, the form or forms it might take.

cheers, alan

 

[Paul Mills]

Hi, you are right, I shouldnt assume, but if cavemen were painting creatures on walls 10,000 years ago, it standsto reason somebody took such notice of the world around them, and sounds a bit arrogant claiming to have discovered something that was always here. Its like popping into Tescos and claiming to discover toothpaste, because nobody has formally described it before! I see names and languages are dynamic entities, but surely in this context, the possessive is incorrect use of todays english. Declaring war on the apostrophe as well as the hyphen now!

 

[thomasdonegan]

Describers never name taxa after themselves.

Really?

Try googling Leiopython hoserae Hoser 2000. Supposedly after a relative of the author, who appears to be a somewhat colorful individual if you read wikipedia. The author is male with the name in feminine form (so hoseri would be self-naming, not hoserae he has argued subsequently...)

The ICZN code does not prohibit self-naming, but their FAQs do state: "There is no rule against this, but it may be a sign of vanity!"

http://iczn.org/category/faqs/frequently-asked-questions

 

[lewis20126]

and sounds a bit arrogant claiming to have discovered something that was always here. !

Like Antarctica, the atom, DNA and ...er..all scientific, geographical or biological "discoveries"?

cheers, alan

 

[Richard Klim]

Try googling Leiopython hoserae Hoser 2000. Supposedly after a relative of the author, who appears to be a somewhat colorful individual if you read wikipedia. The author is male with the name in feminine form (so hoseri would be self-naming, not hoserae he has argued subsequently...)

Correction: Describers rarely name taxa after themselves.

Never say never...

 

[Biancone]

... fail to understand why anyone thinks one of natures creations should be named after any person. And names like Pallas's Warbler, sound like the "possesion of" Pallas, or his invention, when he was merely the first person to formally descibe it within Linnean boundaries. People had already seen them before, so its hardly pioneering ground, worthy of such adulation...

What a bizarre thing to get excited about! Surely you are reading too much into this naming convention? Seriously, has anyone, anywhere, ever been confused? Does anyone "adulate" Pallas? (Well, I have some admiration for many such early collectors, but not adulation). Nobody ever thought Pallas' Leaf Warbler was in any sense possessed or invented by Pallas, and nobody does now either. That is, unless proposing that it is a Linnaean species is in some sense an 'invention'. Pallas collected and described it but didn't himself create the current English vernacular name. I know nothing about the folk taxonomy in use when and where he found his specimens, but some might even argue that it really had not been 'seen' before if it had no distinct name. I rather like the way personal names are incorporated into common or Linnaean names, so often evocative of particular times and places during our pestilential spread around the globe (or not, viz. Scaptia beyonceae). Pallas may be long-gone, but the warbler is still here, regardless of changes to the taxonomy it is embedded in, and I hope nobody gets around to giving it some ghastly alphanumeric code name anytime soon.
Brian

 

[Mysticete]

On Hoser's names:

My understanding is that a recent paper was published by some australian herpers who basically labeled all his names as invalid, given that they were not published via a real peer-reviewed journal. So I mean, his taxonomy has a lot worse problems than naming stuff after himself

 

[thomasdonegan]

I looked into these herp issues a few years ago when asked to review a paper on nomenclatural aspects of all this. There seems to be a pretty acromonious disagreement between some of the authors: Australian herpetology makes Colombian and Brazilian ornithology both look like a love-in!

From memory a number of the assertions about the invalidity of these taxa were pretty dubious. Self-publication, whilst not as good as peer reviewed publication, does not make a name invalid. In some fields, especially invertebrates, some of the leading book series have been self-financed by highly respected authors or published using their own publishing companies. That is not to approve of "journals" with no review and only a single author in their history.... It has also been considered that the diagnosis of several of these new taxa were no good (although there is no requirement in the ICZN code for a diagnosis to be correct or any good, just to be published in the description so this does not cause invalidity either). I don't recall any specific issues with the types. But most of the contra argumentation seems really like arguments for subjective synonymy not invalidity.

 

[lewis20126]

Topical in view of Thomas's post:

http://www.lynxeds.com/enotice/2013-02/hbw_special_volume/special_volume.html

"An unexpected addition to this volume is a section including the original scientific descriptions of some 12–17 species (final number pending peer-review process), all totally new to science. These descriptions are the combined work of a number of renowned Amazonian ornithologists, and highlight the massive importance of the world's largest area of tropical forest.

The inclusion of all these scientific descriptions in the Special Volume is of some additional significance because to find so many species described simultaneously, in the same paper, one has to go back well over a century."

I'm guessing most are new species carved from existing widespread "species" from the various Amazonian interfluvia but happy to be told that they relate to spectacular and highly distinctive new forms!

cheers, alan

 

[GMK]

Alan, the majority will be, as you suspected, more or less cryptic new taxa being described through reanalysis of limits within widespread species. But, hopefully, some remarkable new birds long in need of naming will surface here too. I understand that’s the intention.

Whether you regard more than a few of the new birds to be named in this special volume as merely PSC species (or subspecies, although those two things are not necessarily synonymous), it will still be great to see this body of work appear now, rather than waiting for it to appear in dribs and drabs over the rest of my lifetime. I’ve certainly been infinitely more excited about Vol. 17’s appearance since learning about this plan in November last year.

 

[Richard Klim]

HBW Special Volume

Whether you regard more than a few of the new birds to be named in this special volume as merely PSC species (or subspecies, although those two things are not necessarily synonymous)...

Hopefully all will be accepted as species by the BirdLife Taxonomic Working Group, thus qualifying for recognition as species in the forthcoming HBW/BirdLife checklist...? It would be rather embarrassing otherwise!