Protocol Question

[BobWill]

Being an amateur I qualify for this category but that also means I'm not sure how to proceed regarding posts prior to publications. I posted a picture of a specimen here before I knew anybody was interested in it and was told that there would be a "short note" published in a journal since there is not enough of the fossil to identify or maybe not enough information for a paper. The interested party asked me to donate it, so of course I did but it will probably be some time before the note is published. I gathered from Dan's post that a normal paper can take a long time and nothing should be revealed beforehand. The question is "does this also apply to a short note"?

[PFOOLEY]

You are a member who contributed to science.

[Uncle Siphuncle]

i tend to donate most readily when a) it's a new taxon and b ) a researcher is poised to begin the process immediately. until those qualifications are met, a given specimen will get personalized adulation in my private collection.

Edited May 2, 2014 by danwoehr

[RichW9090]

It really is up to the researcher who is going to publish it, Bob. Some don't mind, others would prefer to wait until it is published.

[FossilDAWG]

What Rich said. I'm not aware of any formal rule against publishing just a photo. Any risk, it seems to me, would come only if you published a photo together with a name and some description, as that could raise awkward issues of priority (= first description of a new species). For example, if you posted a thread where you said something like "this is a new species of Ifounditi that has five protuberances, unlike previously known species that only had four; we're going to call it Ifounditi bobwillsiensis", with a photo, you could have a problem. It's not obvious to me that posting on the Forum is "publication"; although it is widely available it doesn't go through any peer review process, but I suppose some super picky person could make an issue of it.

Also if the specimen has more than the usual scientific importance, or is especially spectacular, the paleontologist doing the description may just prefer to keep it under wraps until the big reveal.

Don

[erose]

Don has hit on the main issue: priority. I've also had one grad student say they worried that others could snag photos for other publications. That surprised me.

[Auspex]

Ask your researcher. If it is not a new taxon, and even the if you are not publishing the name, there should be no conflict of priority.

In any case, cooperate with the wishes of the researcher.

[Uncle Siphuncle]

agreed. i tend to ask. "Genus" sp. nov. will suffice in most cases. the last thing you want to do is rub the researcher wrong for reasons you can't foresee.

[vertman]

i tend to donate most readily when a) it's a new taxon and b ) a researcher is poised to begin the process immediately. until those qualifications are met, a given specimen will get personalized adulation in my private collection.

To Dan's comment above, I usually hold onto important specimens and simply keep them quiet until the researcher is ready to begin work on it. At that point I donate it to the proper institution so they can begin their work. What seems most important to me is first knowing what is important and second knowing how to contact a researcher who has an interest in the particular piece.

[BobWill]

Thanks for the comments. This is a busy curator with bigger things happening so I won't bother him. I need to find some more of this thing so it can be identified properly anyway. It was special because of it's size, so maybe it's less important until we can manage an ID.

[PFOOLEY]

This is great input. I never thought of these aspects. Really showin' how much of an amateur I am. Thank you for the insight.

[Doctor Mud]

Yes papers can take a long time until they are actually published, depending on the journal you would be talking months until it was published. They have to go to an editor who sends the paper out for peer review, then there might be another round of edits and then a delay until the paper is published.

I can't imagine any problems in terms of the journal if you put any information on TFF - the only issue could be someone stealing the images or idea for the paper. The image by itself wouldn't be much use without information on the context though (where it was found). There shouldn't be any conflict over previous publication since TFF is not a peer-reviewed journal. Some journals have a media embargo. These are high impact journals like Nature and Science. I wouldn't think that this would apply to a short note though.

Like the others said - ask the researcher. I am paranoid when it comes to data that relates to any unpublished papers and it is released on a "need to know" basis. Sounds extreme but I have had people try and steal my data before.

I hope this helps.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Doctor Mud

[FossilDAWG]

Some journals are a lot faster than others in regard to the time from acceptance of the paper and actual publishing, though these days papers are often published online before they come out in print. By "acceptance" I mean that the paper has been reviewed, revised, re-reviewed, and the journal has made a final decision to publish the paper. I remember at one time the Journal of Paleontology was taking more than a year to get things out, and others (that published longer monographs) took 2-3 years. That doesn't count the time the paper is in review. Most journals I review for these days (none of them paleontology related) ask for a response in 10 days to 2 weeks, which does not always happen but still you can't sit on a paper for months before sending in a review any more.

Anyway, the major cause of delay is not the handling of the paper by the journal, but delays in the researcher getting the paper written. There can be various reasons for this, some more legitimate than others. Here are some of them:

1. The researcher may have a "day job", i.e. identifying samples for a oil exploration company, or running a museum, or (lots of other things), and working on your specimen may be more or less a "hobby interest".

2. Ideally analysis of your specimen should involve direct comparison to holotype and paratype specimens of related species, to ensure your specimen is really something different and new. This requires arranging a loan of those specimens from whatever museums may be housing the types. Some museums don't loan type material, which then requires the researcher to travel and visit the museum to examine the specimens. For example, an entomology PhD student in my department is spending part of this summer in London and Berlin to examine beetles in museum collections.

3. Sometimes your specimen is just a part of a larger study, such as a revision of a genus or larger taxonomic group. This involves the issues in (2) but on a larger scale.

As a personal example, I sent a specimen of a new Ordovician cephalopod to the most qualified researcher, and as it turns out all three issues I mentioned apply. Now it seems he won't be able to get to the description until after he retires in a few years. Oh well.

Don

[RichW9090]

The millstones of science grind exceedingly slow, but they grind exceedingly fine.

[Wrangellian]

...

As a personal example, I sent a specimen of a new Ordovician cephalopod to the most qualified researcher, and as it turns out all three issues I mentioned apply. Now it seems he won't be able to get to the description until after he retires in a few years. Oh well.

Don

This sounds like my recent experience... except my researcher has not responded to emails after taking one of my specimens and IDing it. I haven't emailed lately, but is this normal? I don't like to pester people, I would rather assume they are just up to their ears in work (though even then I would not expect a reply to an email to take more than a few secs out of their life)... He told me I would be able to choose which museum it goes into if and when he ever gets a paper done on it.. He wouldn't just be able to keep it, would he? What is the protocol around this? Should I assume he will eventually get back to me, even after a year's silence, or more?

Seems like there is room for misinterpretation (if not willful advantage-taking) as to whether the specimen was given or loaned to a researcher, and I wonder if some form of written contract would be a good idea instead of everything being verbal and based on trust/reputation.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Wrangellian

[BobWill]

In my (one) experience the contract was with the museum not the person doing the paper. Maybe you could offer to donate it to a museum your researcher is affiliated with and ask them for a contract so at least it's officially documented.

[Wrangellian]

He told me it should be donated to one of the 3 museums that house fossils on this Island and I would have my choice of which, but I have heard nothing from him since last year. He is not from the Island, but from WA state. I would prefer to have it kept somewhere here on the Island.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Wrangellian

[BobWill]

This could be a useful lesson for all of us. Try asking someone from each museum whether they might benefit from the donation to see which one is best then give the one you choose a photograph of it with the contact information of the researcher. He may be more likely to communicate with a museum and if he agrees to send it along when he's done they may offer you a donation contract in advance of the actual hand-over. Does anyone know if this is ever done?

[Wrangellian]

Photograph?

Seems I still have lots of lessons to learn...

[Wrangellian]

Looks like no one wants to touch this with a 39.5' pole! (or just don't have an answer?)

[FossilDAWG]

I guess I'll make just a "few" comments.

Most amateur paleontology aficionados have the notion that professional paleontologists are just waiting for the chance to publish a "new species". In fact for the most part the days of one species = one paper are long gone. There are exceptions, of course, such as the recent paper based on an exceptional crab specimen that allowed a much more complete redescription of a known species. However in that case there was a "hook": the specimen showed a feature (the fine structure of the eyes) almost unknown in the fossil record.

More commonly papers will tackle a larger subject, such as revision of a genus or family, description of the fauna of a new formation/locality with several new genera/species, or a study of biostratigraphy over a large area or stretch of geological time. In a study of this nature, that "new species" is just one part of a much larger and more time consuming project.

For example, here Ward_GSABull_2012.pdf is a study in which (I am pretty sure) the paleontologist Wrangellian was mentioning is one of the authors. This study establishes an improved ammonite zonation across the Upper Cretaceous for the entire west coast of North America, correlates that zonation with sites across the Pacific and in the western interior , and correlates the paleontological data with magnetostratigraphy (reversals of the Earth's magnetic field).

Let us consider what was involved in this one paper:

1. Detailed layer by layer measurement of stratigraphic sections, with intensive bed by bed collection of fossils, at a large number of sites in Mexico, California, Oregon, Washington State, Vancouver Island, and Alaska.

2. Identification of all the collected fossils (thousands of specimens in all).

3. Drilling cores from closely spaced intervals at all of those sections (hundreds of precisely oriented cores from precisely measured rock layers).

4. Highly finicky (and expensive) analysis of every one of those cores to determine the orientation of the magnetic field at the time the rock was deposited.

5. Collection and analysis of bentonite or other samples for radioactive dating of the rocks.

Let us also consider the logistics needed to accomplish this:

1. Getting the funding to pay for all the field work and analysis. A National Science Foundation grant proposal is like writing a very detailed book, and these days the NSF funds only about 5% of the proposals it receives. Usually it takes multiple rounds of submitting, getting reviews, rewriting the grant, resubmitting, getting more reviews, rewriting again, and so on. Also consider that there is only one submission date per year for NSF, so each cycle takes a whole year. It isn't uncommon to have to work at it for several years before getting funded (or giving up).

2. Arranging all the permits to collect, especially difficult (almost impossible) in the case of Mexico.

3. Planning the expeditions. Several of the sites were in remote locations, so you have to have every detail including transportation, food, shelter, gas and water for the drill to obtain the core samples, etc. planned out in meticulous detail. One thing overlooked can ensure you get nothing for your troubles once you get to the field.

4. Actually going to all those sites and measuring/sampling the sections.

5. Doing all the analysis once you get home.

6. Writing the paper.

You should also remember that this has to get done while you are also teaching classes, training grad students, supervising theses, likely working on other projects (few researchers have only one iron in the fire), and perhaps (when there is time) paying some attention to your spouse and kids. Also (in this particular case) running a foundation to try to protect the remaining Nautilis populations from extinction due to overfishing, and writing a number of popular science books.

Even if the study is a "simple" description of a new species, it's useful to consider what is involved. First, how do you know it's really a new species? Although you may think that's the case, you still have to verify that in two ways. First, you have to collect and read every paper that has ever been published on anything that is similar. This can take a long time in the case of old or foreign publications, and sometimes you also have to get the work translated which is expensive and costly. Second, once you have determined the repository (museum, ideally) where the type specimens of every related species are kept, you have to examine those specimens in person. Some museums will loan (mail) specimens, but many will not allow holotype or paratype specimens to be loaned so you have to travel to the museum to examine the material. This can be very time consuming and costly if you have to visit dozens of museums on several continents. Admittedly it may not always be possible to check out every related species in person, so it helps if the papers have very good descriptions and photographs, points that are often lacking in species that were described long ago.

What is the solution for the amateur who wants to live to see the paper published? It doesn't hurt to help with the grunt work, such as running down obscure literature. Make the project exciting (to the paleontologist) by providing a larger scope to the study. For example, learn to measure stratigraphic sections, and compile a complete accounting of species that occur in association with the new species. If your specimen is not a new species, but is a known species that has never been found in your area before, ask yourself what makes this worth publishing. You could probably get a short note of the "new record" published somewhere, but if your specimen is of a species that is important in biostratigraphy elsewhere that is going to be your "hook". The specimen then documents not just the occurrence of the species, but also fills in the local sequence and allows more precise/complete correlation with other areas. This also requires detailed geology, measuring sections and collecting fossils, to ensure that the sequence of ammonite zones (for example) is the same in your area as elsewhere.

Don

[MB]

More or less, Don

Edited June 28, 2014 by MB

[Uncle Siphuncle]

i generally ascertain a new taxon by sending photos to the appropriate researcher. then i have a habit of making my donation as late in the lengthy process as possible in order to maximize my personal enjoyment of my find while minimizing chances of it being lost or forgotten. in the end, all goes well, at least in theory.

[Wrangellian]

That was my plan as well... Sent the pics to the researcher, got his interest, he came up to look at the site and took one of my samples to peel it to get a look at the sutures, ID'd it, came back and invited me on a field trip, haven't heard from him since. I think we parted on friendly terms... I didn't find anything worthwhile on the FT so maybe he decided I wouldn't be of much use in future, but I did find those bacs..

I didn't want to reveal his name lest I get into more trouble/suspicion than I may already be in , but just wanted to know if it was normal for a professional to take something and then take a year or who-knows-how-long-in-the-end to get back to me about doing a paper (which he was talking about at the time). I know it takes long time to do the research, but I appreciate communication in the interim. Too busy to even acknowledge receipt of an email? I have never been good at the interpersonal stuff so I don't tend to know what people are thinking and I don't know if they are reading me right either, so miscommunication does happen: I wonder if the thought I was giving that one to him, but I thought he said he'd like me to photo it (G. Beard would help) and then I would get to choose which museum it goes into. He even said I'd get my name on the paper alongside his if that can be believed, though I expressed doubt that I would be able to contribute much, so I hope he didn't interpret that as unwillingness on my part to do what I can. He seemed to also get the impression that I didn't want to donate anything, but I certainly am, like you Dan, willing to donate anything that gets into a paper. I just don't want to donate everything en masse whether a paper is in the works or not. I will offer whatever is needed for the research, then whatever is used I choose what institution it goes into, right?

In any case, I am left hanging, and don't want to pester a busy man. I'm not asking for a psychological analysis of this particular situation, just what is the protocol around loans and impending donations like mine? Is there any, or is it all based on trust, reputations and word of mouth?

Edited May 31, 2014 by Wrangellian

[siteseer]

There are all sorts of things that happen from the recognition of a new species to its eventual description...

Fossils found around 1960 (or earlier) appeared to belong a new species, or maybe a new genus, but it doesn't really look like anything known at the time. No one writes it up other than as a figure in a local rock/fossil club note and as a non-descript entry in a faunal list within the description of an unrelated animal from the same locality. The specimens are not common but not really rare either. Then, 15-20 years later a very similar form is found alive - a genus new to science. The local paleontologists are excited because they see the connection to the unnamed specimens but still no one writes it up. The one who first examined specimens in the 60's is the logical one to do it but he moves away from the area and becomes involved with other projects.

By the early 1980's another paleontologist becomes the logical one to write it up because he collected the type locality as well and he noted the presence of specimens of the species in a 1970's article on another fauna in the same general region. However, he moves away from the area a few years later for a more geology-related job that keeps him from doing much paleo. Still, he plans to get back to some projects related to his Ph.D research including the description of that species - maybe after he retires. In the meantime the landowner of the site stops allowing any collecting at the locality.

By the late 1990's specimens have become more widely known and collectors are clamoring for a name. Other researchers start getting interested in naming it themselves and talk to a collector about possibly writing it up. The collector tells them about the researcher who is most likely going to write it up after he retires from his "real" job so they back off. In paleo circles it is not cool to jump into someone else's territory uninvited and describe a species from it or describe a species from his Ph.D dissertation - things a paleontologist tends to do eventually or he gives his blessing to some new kid.

Then on a spring day this year the fossil species description was finally published - over 50 years after its discovery. The researcher retired a few years ago and has started getting back to things he's always wanted to do. He collaborated with another paleontologist who has been writing on related subjects. The researcher honored the first paleontologist who examined specimens back in the 60's, now deceased, by naming it after him.

The full story goes mostly like that to the best of my knowledge.

I guess I'll make just a "few" comments.

Most amateur paleontology aficionados have the notion that professional paleontologists are just waiting for the chance to publish a "new species". In fact for the most part the days of one species = one paper are long gone. There are exceptions, of course, such as the recent paper based on an exceptional crab specimen that allowed a much more complete redescription of a known species. However in that case there was a "hook": the specimen showed a feature (the fine structure of the eyes) almost unknown in the fossil record.

More commonly papers will tackle a larger subject, such as revision of a genus or family, description of the fauna of a new formation/locality with several new genera/species, or a study of biostratigraphy over a large area or stretch of geological time. In a study of this nature, that "new species" is just one part of a much larger and more time consuming project.

For example, here Ward_GSABull_2012.pdf is a study in which (I am pretty sure) the paleontologist Wrangellian was mentioning is one of the authors. This study establishes an improved ammonite zonation across the Upper Cretaceous for the entire west coast of North America, correlates that zonation with sites across the Pacific and in the western interior , and correlates the paleontological data with magnetostratigraphy (reversals of the Earth's magnetic field).

Let us consider what was involved in this one paper:

1. Detailed layer by layer measurement of stratigraphic sections, with intensive bed by bed collection of fossils, at a large number of sites in Mexico, California, Oregon, Washington State, Vancouver Island, and Alaska.

2. Identification of all the collected fossils (thousands of specimens in all).

3. Drilling cores from closely spaced intervals at all of those sections (hundreds of precisely oriented cores from precisely measured rock layers).

4. Highly finicky (and expensive) analysis of every one of those cores to determine the orientation of the magnetic field at the time the rock was deposited.

5. Collection and analysis of bentonite or other samples for radioactive dating of the rocks.

Let us also consider the logistics needed to accomplish this:

1. Getting the funding to pay for all the field work and analysis. A National Science Foundation grant proposal is like writing a very detailed book, and these days the NSF funds only about 5% of the proposals it receives. Usually it takes multiple rounds of submitting, getting reviews, rewriting the grant, resubmitting, getting more reviews, rewriting again, and so on. Also consider that there is only one submission date per year for NSF, so each cycle takes a whole year. It isn't uncommon to have to work at it for several years before getting funded (or giving up).

2. Arranging all the permits to collect, especially difficult (almost impossible) in the case of Mexico.

3. Planning the expeditions. Several of the sites were in remote locations, so you have to have every detail including transportation, food, shelter, gas and water for the drill to obtain the core samples, etc. planned out in meticulous detail. One thing overlooked can ensure you get nothing for your troubles once you get to the field.

4. Actually going to all those sites and measuring/sampling the sections.

5. Doing all the analysis once you get home.

6. Writing the paper.

You should also remember that this has to get done while you are also teaching classes, training grad students, supervising theses, likely working on other projects (few researchers have only one iron in the fire), and perhaps (when there is time) paying some attention to your spouse and kids. Also (in this particular case) running a foundation to try to protect the remaining Nautilis populations from extinction due to overfishing, and writing a number of popular science books.

Even if the study is a "simple" description of a new species, it's useful to consider what is involved. First, how do you know it's really a new species? Although you may think that's the case, you still have to verify that in two ways. First, you have to collect and read every paper that has ever been published on anything that is similar. This can take a long time in the case of old or foreign publications, and sometimes you also have to get the work translated which is expensive and costly. Second, once you have determined the repository (museum, ideally) where the type specimens of every related species are kept, you have to examine those specimens in person. Some museums will loan (mail) specimens, but many will not allow holotype or paratype specimens to be loaned so you have to travel to the museum to examine the material. This can be very time consuming and costly if you have to visit dozens of museums on several continents. Admittedly it may not always be possible to check out every related species in person, so it helps if the papers have very good descriptions and photographs, points that are often lacking in species that were described long ago.

What is the solution for the amateur who wants to live to see the paper published? It doesn't hurt to help with the grunt work, such as running down obscure literature. Make the project exciting (to the paleontologist) by providing a larger scope to the study. For example, learn to measure stratigraphic sections, and compile a complete accounting of species that occur in association with the new species. If your specimen is not a new species, but is a known species that has never been found in your area before, ask yourself what makes this worth publishing. You could probably get a short note of the "new record" published somewhere, but if your specimen is of a species that is important in biostratigraphy elsewhere that is going to be your "hook". The specimen then documents not just the occurrence of the species, but also fills in the local sequence and allows more precise/complete correlation with other areas. This also requires detailed geology, measuring sections and collecting fossils, to ensure that the sequence of ammonite zones (for example) is the same in your area as elsewhere.

Don