Is it Asaphus popovi?

[syl1219s]

Hi!

I purchased this trilobite on ebay.

Information of this asaphus provided is

name: Asaphus kowalewskii

Locality: Volkhov river, St. Petersburg region, Russia.

Age: Aseri Horizon, Middle Ordovician

 

But i think it's eye is less evolved than kowalewskii

So, i think it is Asaphus popovi which is intermediate of cornutus and kowalewskii.(But i don't have accurate information of popovi)

what do you think about it???

 

[Kane]

The intermediate species between A. punctatus and A. kowalewskii would be A. intermedius. Klikushin has no entry for an A. popovi. To my eye, it seems to be A. kowalewskii; not all examples have the very long eye stalks, as there will be variance in eye stalk length between examples.

 

Unless this is an older name, or new literature has emerged, I will tag @piranha

[syl1219s]

7 minutes ago, Kane said:

The intermediate species between A. punctatus and A. kowalewskii would be A. intermedius. Klikushin has no entry for an A. popovi. To my eye, it seems to be A. kowalewskii; not all examples have the very long eye stalks, as there will be variance in eye stalk length between examples.

 

Unless this is an older name, or new literature has emerged, I will tag @piranha

Thank you for your reply!

 

I see this picture on http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/trilobites-russia/Russian_Trilobites.htm

 

 

So i think popvi is intermediate of cornutus and kowalewskii.

 

It is too difficult........

[piranha]

A. convincens, A. insolensus, A. nodirus, A. popovi, A. ultimus are all: nomina nuda.  The phylogram was made by Sergey Teleshev and released on a CD-ROM. 

 

He also proposed a cheirurid and some illaenids.  However, just like the asaphids, none of these have ever been formally published in a peer reviewed journal.

Cheirurus exsul var. coronata

Illaenus tauricornis var. extensivus

Illaenus schmidti var. cliens

Illaenus schmidti var. cardinalis

Illaenus tauricornis var. thallosus

 

Teleshev, S., et al. 1999
The Encyclopedia of Ordovician Trilobites of Russia.
Petersburg Paleontological Laboratory, St. Petersburg (CD-ROM)

[FossilDAWG]

This reminds me of a discussion a few years ago that started with a self-published book that named several new echinoid species.  I was curious about the ICZN (International Committee on Zoological Nomenclature) rules so I asked an insect taxonomist friend of mine about it.  Apparently the rules do not require new species to be published in peer reviewed journals, although that would clearly be preferred in the interests of scientific rigor and wide accessibility.  The publication needs to be "accessible", but technically that could be met by depositing copies of your privately published book in a few major research institution libraries, and making it available for sale.  In the past some species names now recognized as valid were published in very small circulation in-house bulletins that were sent around to a few dozen (at the most) relevant research labs.  Also as an example, Ed Petuch regularly publishes books on Florida (and elsewhere) fossil shells that are not peer reviewed and are sold commercially, and contain very minimalist descriptions of new species, yet these names are technically valid.  Whether or not the new species are really good species is then up to the consensus of the community of researchers, as it true for all proposed species regardless of where they are published.

 

A relatively new question regards on-line publishing.  A number of newer journals, and even some older ones, now publish entirely on-line without any print copies being made.  In 2012 the ICZN ruled that names published in entirely on-line venues are not valid, as there must be a hard copy version available somewhere.  Sometimes researchers are not aware of the rule, so they publish papers containing new species online and those names are invalid.  A "fix" to this I have seen recently is to publish a brief diagnosis of the new species, and a photo, in a short article in a journal such as Zootaxa (which is published in print as well as online), and the article must be assigned a Zoobank registration number.  That article can then refer to the online paper for the full description, discussion, comparison to other species etc.  However the official publication date and journal is the date of the print journal, not the earlier online paper.  Not confusing at all!

 

I'm pretty sure species published in a CD-only article would fall under the same consideration as online only publications.  To be valid, those species would have to be published in a printed article that includes the name, a diagnosis (brief statement of the unique features of the species), a photo or figure, and a Zoobank registration number.

 

Perhaps regrettably, there is no formal requirement for peer review or for widespread distribution of the article in paper form.  At least, that is what I was told by a research taxonomist. 

 

Don

[DPS Ammonite]

Currently, you can publish via only PDF.

 

https://www.iczn.org/the-code/the-code-online/

 

 

[piranha]

1 hour ago, FossilDAWG said:

Also as an example, Ed Petuch regularly publishes books on Florida (and elsewhere) fossil shells that are not peer reviewed and are sold commercially, and contain very minimalist descriptions of new species, yet these names are technically valid.  Whether or not the new species are really good species is then up to the consensus of the community of researchers, as it true for all proposed species regardless of where they are published.

 

 

There is no ambiguity in this case....the names of Teleshev are nomina nuda. Although you cite some interesting exceptions, peer review is typically a bare minimum expectation for any meaningful consensus. Otherwise these 'lesser' publications tend to fall into the abyss of grey literature.

[syl1219s]

WOW, Thank you all so much!