Type specimens in modern ornithology are necessary and irreplaceable

Peterson, A. Townsend

doi:10.1642/auk-13-204.1

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regrettably, some species’ descriptions have been published without a type specimen ever being preserved. This is detrimental to science for a number of reasons, among them are that it can (1) hinder identification (and therefore use) of additional specimens, especially if cryptic or very similar species exist (a possibility that cannot be ruled out a priori ; Gutiérrez & Pine ); (2) prevent taxonomic descriptions of additional and phenotypically similar new species (see discussions presented by Peterson and Gutiérrez & Pine ); and (3) preclude assessments of the phylogenetic position of the alleged new species, which compromises its correct allocation into supraspecific taxonomic ranks (e.g. Jones et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is an ‘extant’ type specimen? Problems arising from naming mammalian species‐group taxa without preserved types

Pine

Gutiérrez

2017

Mammal Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT1. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature allows the naming of new species without a type specimen ever having been preserved. This practice causes problems and is undesirable because if related, cryptic, sibling species are encountered later, it may not be possible either to allocate them with certainty to the earlier named species, or to determine them to be something different. 2.We hypothesised that examination of the instances in which mammalian species were named without preserved types would reveal certain problems that are not unique to them, but are encountered more frequently than when types are preserved. We also thought the Code's stipulation that preserved types are not required in the case of specimens that are no longer 'extant' would present special problems hitherto unremarked upon in the literature. 3. We conducted a review of cases involving putative new species of mammal named since 1900. These were analysed to see what special problems they present and the frequency of such problems. 4. We found that the Code's waiver of the requirement that a type specimen be deposited in a collection if the specimen is no longer extant presents numerous problems-in particular, that a living-at-large type specimen can still be 'extant' even if its whereabouts are unknown at certain times and/or it may no longer be alive. Illustrations alone being used to designate type specimens is especially problematic, owing to mammals' lack of meristic and other obvious distinguishing external characters. Hoaxes, the difficulty in determining that they are hoaxes, and various errors of taxonomic allocation appear to be especially common with names without preserved types. The Code should be revised to require preserved specimens as types for new names. Tissue samples alone for DNA analysis are not ideal for serving this purpose, but should be allowed to meet the requirement.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is an ‘extant’ type specimen? Problems arising from naming mammalian species‐group taxa without preserved types

Pine

Gutiérrez

2017

Mammal Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A reason why the body was not preserved for science was not given. According to Peterson (2014) 'the specimen documentation of its phenotype is only very fragmentary, so comparisons with other, similar taxa will forever be difficult.' However, in the original description the cytochrome b gene was sequenced, obtained from the collected feathers, and the sequence compared to that of related species.…”

Section: Bebearia Banksi Hecq Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Valid (Madika et al 2011, Peterson 2014). Holotype and paratype designated from photographs, no preserved parts.…”

Section: Badis Badis Bengalensismentioning

confidence: 99%

New Species Described From Photographs: Yes? No? Sometimes? A Fierce Debate and a New Declaration of the ICZN

Krell

Marshall

2017

Insect Systematics and Diversity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The option of describing new taxa using photographs as proxies for lost or escaped ('unpreserved') type specimens has been rarely used but is now undergoing renewed scrutiny as taxonomists are increasingly equipped to capture descriptive information prior to capturing and preserving type specimens. We here provide a historical perspective on this practice from both nomenclatural and practical points of view, culminating in a summary and discussion of a new Declaration of the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature containing recommendations about descriptions without preserved specimens. We conclude that although descriptions using photographs as proxy types are Code-compliant and occasionally justified, the conditions under which such descriptions are justified are likely to remain relatively rare. Increasing restrictions on specimen collecting, which we deplore because of the centrality of collecting and collections to all of biodiversity science, could lead to more 'proxy type' descriptions in those taxa in which photographs can provide sufficient information for descriptions, but we predict that such cases will remain infrequent exceptions.

show abstract

“…One objection printed in The Auk was authored by four ornithologists and signed by 98 others from 19 different countries (Banks et al 1993). And the furor surrounding this particular episode has never really abated: the episode is mentioned in many if not most of the discussions of the ethics of collecting that have since occurred (e.g., Hustler 1996;Wakeham-Dawson, Morris, & Tubbs 2002;Bates et al 2004;Dalebout et al 2004;Dubois & Nemésio 2007;Donegan 2008Donegan , 2009Nemésio 2009;Peterson 2014;Dubois 2017;Krell & Marshall 2017). Newly controversial cases have since arisen (e.g., Jones et al 2005;Thalmann & Geissmann 2005;Mendes Pontes, Malta, & Asfora 2006;Gentile & Snell 2009;Marshall & Evenhuis 2015), but the case of the provocatively-named Laniarius liberatus-the shrike that was set free-is the one that most prominently commences and persists throughout this modern period of discord surrounding biological specimen collecting practices.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Let me tell you ‘bout the birds and the bee-mimicking flies and Bambiraptor

Havstad

2019

Biol Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientists have been arguing for more than twenty-five years about whether it is a good idea to collect voucher specimens from particularly vulnerable biological populations. Some think that, obviously, scientists should not be harvesting (read: killing) organisms from, for instance, critically endangered species. Others think that, obviously, it is the special job of scientists to collect precisely such information before any chance of retrieving it is forever lost. The character, extent, longevity, and span of the ongoing disagreement indicates that this is likely to be a hard problem to solve. Nonetheless, the aim of this paper is to help field biologists figure out what do to when collecting a voucher specimen risks extinction. Here I present and assess varying practices of specimen collection for both extant (i.e., neontological) and extinct (i.e., paleontological) species in order to compare and contrast cases where extinction risk both is and is not a problem. When it comes to taking vouchers from extant species at some risk of extinction, I determine that those advocating for conservative approaches to collection as well as those advocating for liberal information-gathering practices have good reasons to assess things in the way they each do. This means that there is unlikely to be a decisive, one-size-fits-all response to this problem. Still, progress can be made. We can acknowledge the risks of proceeding in either manner, as well as the uncertainty about how best to proceed (which will be deep in some cases). We can proceed as thoughtfully as possible, and be ready to articulate a rationale for whichever procedure is used in any particular case.

show abstract

Type specimens in modern ornithology are necessary and irreplaceable

Cited by 6 publications

References 11 publications

What is an ‘extant’ type specimen? Problems arising from naming mammalian species‐group taxa without preserved types

What is an ‘extant’ type specimen? Problems arising from naming mammalian species‐group taxa without preserved types

New Species Described From Photographs: Yes? No? Sometimes? A Fierce Debate and a New Declaration of the ICZN

Let me tell you ‘bout the birds and the bee-mimicking flies and Bambiraptor

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About