The sidebar discussion on publishing the description of a new taxon which has taken most of this thread is quite interesting. It will make a good reference, perhaps it should be pulled out and lumped under a more applicable topic.
Rules, including ICZN, as well as academic "suggestions", formats of the paper and terminology, and preferences (e.g., genetic testing) stratifies the ability to publish a new taxon description such that the ability to do so is largely outside the ability of smaller institutions, citizen scientists, and those who live amongst the subject taxon.
To itemize some of the challenges to the lesser-endowed:
1. No money for $200 reference books
2. Publications hidden behind paywalls
3. No money for travel to institutional collections
4. English (and certainly Lepidoptery) as a second language
5. No credentials or membership as required to participate & publish
6. No money for even COI testing, no lab within 1500km
On it's face, a citizen scientist from, for example, Solomon Islands is in a perfect position- it would take less than a week to find a new taxon that is clearly unique; they have word processors and computers and the internet. So presumably nothing would stop said enthusiast from describing a new species- except the reality of the academic environment.
adamcotton wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 6:12 pm
If two populations are consistently visibly distinct in the vast majority of specimens then they should deserve subspecies status whether or not they are genetically different at all.
This shocked me so much I had to ponder it for days.
First, it really caught me off guard that Adam, of all people, being so taxonomy-minded would hold such a liberal perspective; I thought Adam would be more strict and "by the book."
Beyond that though, doesn't it open the door to commercial dealers naming forms as species? In thinking of the COI tree I have for the eastern Tiger Swallowtails, from that it's clear that if Pavulaan names bjorkae and we are naming MST, there are other stand-outs that equally should be described (perhaps even moreso!) To make it more complicated, there are at least two other populations of Tigers (one I have, the other I've seen photos of) that are really, really morphologically distinctive....should those also be described? [these are on my "to look into and get genetics" list]
Further, Pavulaan's bjorkae is described with the subject having a limited range. The other Spring Form throughout US eastern seaboard/ New England are not included in bjorkae. As I've voice, JHyatt's SF and our local SF and the SF an hour north of where I live are each morphologically distinct. My next project plan was to study SF, and while Pavulaan may have scooped me, then again he may not have. I've kept these differences in my mind as perhaps forms, perhaps hybrids; I am hesitant to name each as unique taxon, pending further analysis. That said, reflecting on Adam's comment, is doing so a disservice to science? Each is unique in some way, do they not merit recognition?
On another note, Harry did tell me why he was motivated to describe bjorkae fast, w/o genetics, which is to head-off a potential cluster (American colloquialism) which would exacerbate problems I've been struggling with during my research.