What is the definition of a “described” species?

[Sagebrush Steve]

What does it take for a species to officially be “described”?  I know there must be more than just having a paper written about it, there must be some minimum requirements for the contents of the paper.  And am I correct that you can’t establish a full species name unless it has been “described”?

[Miocene_Mason]

Peer review, publishing in a well known medium (ex. The journal Nature), and recognition by some authoritative body (ex. ICZN) are some of the usual things that are needed.

[doushantuo]

Dunno the mechanics of it,but here goes my guess(not necessarily in the right order) :

(anyone may contradict and/or amplify,BTW)

deposition/description of data like:

place of discovery(nowadays prolly with global coordinates)/e.g.: semilithified nannofossil ooze,Site 397,South Atlantic/"temporary Roadcut,Interstate Highway 76).

 

method of collecting(.e.g."dredging",coring)",mentioning of e.g.sieve sizes(microscopic plants/animals!)

(differential)diagnosis:listing of defining characters/apomorphies

for fossils: mentioning a stratum typicum?

method of preparation(e.g. "formaldehyde"/"dentist brush"/coated with ammonium chloride)

method of examination,with details (e.g.SEM,EDAX/"stained with Alizarin Red"/confocal/Raman)

designation of type species/holotypes and/or lectotypes(E.g. "Tretodictyum Schulze 1877 by monotypy")

circumscription: "original specimen"/"cast"

for fossils:petrography/mineralogy,possibly remarks about taphonomy and facies

Systematics:Phylum/class,etc

depostion in an institution(e.g.:"National Science Museum,Gotham City")",with specifics

NB: for nannofossils: England Finder Coordinates!!!

Mentioning of circumstances that might have hindered (futher)examination:e.g."downcore contamination"/"collected from scree"/political unrest

prevented the further collecting of specimens/"anterior spine broken off during preparation"

All of the above is "traditional taxonomy"(so no "crownward plesion",deposition of mitochondrial sequences,etc)

At some stage:ratification

[doushantuo]

an example:

notice the important reference to systematic practice/orthodoxy(perceived or otherwise):"Cnida terminology follows England"

 

 

 

comparative differential diagnosis* in tabular form:

*that's what I make of it,others may disagree

 

 

 

[Ludwigia]

5 hours ago, Sagebrush Steve said:

What does it take for a species to officially be “described”?  I know there must be more than just having a paper written about it, there must be some minimum requirements for the contents of the paper.  And am I correct that you can’t establish a full species name unless it has been “described”?

Whodaman has basically summed it up to my understanding. The described specimen must also be deposited in a museum or similar institution in case further or comparative study is wished in the future.

[Troodon]

There is actually a book for this that describes the procedure.  If you scroll down that page every chapter is summarized.  Pretty involved process that can take a couple of years.

 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/wins06824

[Sagebrush Steve]

6 hours ago, Troodon said:

There is actually a book for this that describes the procedure.  If you scroll down that page every chapter is summarized.  Pretty involved process that can take a couple of years.

 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/wins06824

Wow, that is just what I wanted to know!  Looks like there could even be some sort of graduate-level course on the topic.  Not that I intend to take it, but it’s good to know the process is well defined.

[erose]

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) sets most, if not all, of the criteria. The type specimens and associated material used for description must be deposited and cataloged into a university, museum or other repository where others can access them for continued research or re-evaluation. The descriptions and associated written material must also be readily accessible. This usually means published papers, journals or reports from existing universities, museums or other scientific institutions that other researchers would have common access to. It can be self-published, but needs to be distributed to others as well as libraries as best as possible.  

 

In the best cases all of the above includes an adequate period of research to make sure the "new" specimen(s) are indeed new and not just variations of an existing species or examples of already described species showing up in new places. For that reason it is best to have full collections of what you believe is a new species, not just single specimens.  Some organisms can express a wide morphological variety not to mention differences between gender, juvenile and adult forms. We have all heard the terms splitters and lumpers. Current workers are still sorting out that kind of thing from decades, and even centuries past.

 

And maybe most important, it should also include serious peer review. Other researchers need to be able to take a long hard look at what is being proposed and have a chance to correct and edit before publication.  Most journals will not publish a paper without peer review and even then there will be others who immediately publish apposing views and may put into question the new taxon's validity.  New names come and sometimes they go. I write all my labels in pencil...;)

 

In the olden days before the ICZN just about anyone could write a paper and describe a new species and it would be considered valid until more work was done. A great example was the "Cincinnati School." A mixed group of professionals, academics and amateurs who, in the late 19th and early 20th century described the great plethora of Late Ordovician fossils found in and around Cincinnati, Ohio. Many where truly great and did excellent jobs sorting out the various species and providing good descriptions. Others were splitters and created new names for the same  organism based only on size or location in the strata or the descriptions were a mere paragraph  and the morphological terminology followed no common standard.  

 

Hope this sheds some light.

 

Erich

 

 

[Sagebrush Steve]

On 12/16/2017 at 1:49 AM, Troodon said:

There is actually a book for this that describes the procedure.  If you scroll down that page every chapter is summarized.  Pretty involved process that can take a couple of years.

 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/wins06824

 

Thanks @Troodon, @WhodamanHD, @erose, and @doushantuo.  I have started reading the book referenced by Troodon, named, appropriately enough, Describing Species, by Judith Winston.  She does a pretty good job of laying out the challenges associated with the task at hand when she writes:

 

The codes that govern the biological naming of plants and animals are written in a legal style and language. ... Even when their language has been decoded, reading a code of nomenclature is about as stimulating for most of us as reading a will in which we are not beneficiaries.

 

If that is what someone who has devoted her life to the subject thinks, there is little hope for the rest of us. But I will soldier on with my reading 

[doushantuo]

I scrolled down on the page mentioned by Troodon,and the book is (almost)bound to be out of date,if perhaps only in the "higher unit taxonomy department"

(I doubt if it contains discussions about methods that have acronyms like GMYC,BEAST,PTP,MCM or closed-reference OTU picking)

rslforey10.1.1.554.2512.pdf

 

systematically satisfying,but slightly unwieldy(recent (=non-fossil)example,mind you)(De Queiroz,1988):

[Sagebrush Steve]

1 hour ago, doushantuo said:

I scrolled down on the page mentioned by Troodon,and the book is (almost)bound to be out of date,if perhaps only in the "higher unit taxonomy department"

(I doubt if it contains discussions about methods that have acronyms like GMYC,BEAST,PTP,MCM or closed-reference OTU picking)

rslforey10.1.1.554.2512.pdf

 

systematically satisfying,but slightly unwieldy(recent (=non-fossil)example,mind you)(De Queiroz,1988):

OTU shows up in the index but none of the others do.  But there are other acronyms in her text that don’t show up in the index so I can’t say for sure they aren’t in there.