We described the fly from the photo

I think this is a question not so much for the authors, but for the reviewers of the article and the editors of Zookeys. It seems that fixing the type based on illustrations is limited to 1960, and then with big reservations-like, for old works, and even if the image is recognized. Of course, this is a violation of both the Code and Ethics. What if someone catches the same buzzer with a red sash on its chest? How do I know if they are related or not? I think that specialists can write to the Nomenclature Commission and talk about recognizing the work as invalid.

how many still undescribed ...

Two articles have been published in recent issues of Zootaxa:

Cianferoni F., Bartolozzi L. 2016. Warning: potential problems for taxonomy on the horizon? // Zootaxa. 4139 (1): 128 - 130

Amorim D.S., Santos C.M.D., Krell F.-T., Dubois A., Nihei S.S., Oliveira O.M.P., Pont A., Song H., Verdade V.K., Fachin D.A., Klassa B., Lamas C.J.E., Oliveira S.S., de Carvalho C.J.B., Mello-Patiu C.A., Hajdu E., Couri M.S., Silva V.C., Capellari R.S., Falaschi R.L., Feitosa R.M., Prendini L., Pombal J.P.Jr., Fernández F., Rocha R.M., Lattke J.E., Caramaschi U., Duarte M., Marques A.C., Reis R.E., Kurina O., Takiya D.M., Tavares M., Fernandes D.S., Franco F.L., Cuezzo F., Paulson D., Guénard B., Schlick-Steiner B.C., Arthofer W., Steiner F.M., Fischer B.L., Jahnson R.A., Delsinne T.D., Donoso D.A., Mulieri P.R., Patitucci L.D., Carpenter J.M., Hermann L., Grimaldi D. 2016. Timeless standards for species delimination // Zootaxa. 4137 (1): 121 - 128

Which discuss a recent article describing a new fly species (if I understand correctly) only based on a photo taken in nature. Formally, the holotype is fixed in the image (the Code does not prohibit this), but the holotype itself does not exist in nature. The authors of the two articles listed above discuss the existing precedent and point out the obvious problems that it can lead to.

The ant lion was described in this way, and if my memory serves me correctly, the photo was taken from some makrushnikov gallery (naturally, after a conversation with the author). IMHO tin is tin, God is their judge.

PS. I heard that it was once described from a photo... the Loch Ness monster, and then it turned out to be a photojournalist, although maybe it's just a journalistic lie. Now photojopping technologies have reached such heights that anyone who wants to describe them can make a fly of their dreams. Moreover, it is desirable that it lives in hard-to-reach rainforest, destroyed by a recent volcanic eruption.

This post was edited by ENO - 29.07.2016 08: 45

Make a corresponding amendment to the code and the matter is over.

It seems that in the full "rotting west" they completely stopped being friends with their heads and at the same time they are trying to teach and admonish others in every possible way!??
With such precedents, IT is NECESSARY to IMMEDIATELY deal harshly and not in any case not to hush up and even more so to put on the brakes!!! There is no doubt that articles should also be written from Russian researchers and it is imperative that the authors include researchers who have described many insect taxa in Russia and abroad! I think that in Zootaxa it will not be printed (they are too afraid of the "Russian Bear" in all its manifestations!!!) but in other journals of the Russian Federation (especially English-language ones like Russian Entomol. J) and NECESSARILY the organ of Russian entomologists - in Entomological Review, we simply HAVE to write a protest about attempts at insinuations in world entomological science.
I remember in the West, someone specialized from the" super-duper zamuchono-scientists " entomolukhovs in redescribing again-poorly described (with obvious nomenclatural errors) insect species published on the periphery in little-known journals... These dirty machinations and innuendos should also be stopped and researchers should be allowed to republish a new correct and accurate description in accordance with the Code of Zoological Nomenclature.
And what, currently there is some modern manual-which would directly indicate ALL the MODERN nomenclatural requirements for the newly described taxon of an insect (I don't judge vertebrates - there may be some nuances) for entomologists?

This post was edited by Penzyak - 29.07.2016 12: 45

Pictures:

_____________.jpg — (29.29к)


__________.jpeg — (43.58к)

In zootaxe, it's quite normal to print Russian bears.

Unfortunately (fortunately?), I am not familiar with the work that describes a new species only from a photograph taken in nature. I will not delve into the subtleties, but if you are interested, I will point out the following: 13.6.1. - the name proposed after 1930 only by reference (in our case, see 12.2.7 the proposal for a new name in connection with the image of the named taxon ...) it doesn't make you fit! Any questions?

Also, I strongly recommend that entomologists do not deal with the standard series as follows: "Individuals were netted without the use of pheromones and kept in a cage until natural death. They were then immediately pinned" (Zootaxa, 4032(4))!

It is strange that critical articles have just been published.
Nonsense, of course, and it would be fine from some half-wits.

If suddenly, link to the original article:

http://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=6143

A completely free interpretation of Article 73.1.4 of the Code! Before applying this part of the article, you should read 73.1., which states, "The holotype is the only instance on which a new nominal taxon of a species group was based in the original publication"! 73.1.4.: in the original publication, the description of the new taxon was based on a single specimen, which was depicted.

When interpreting this article by the authors (ZooKeys 525: 117-127), you can describe it using any image! I suggest that the same authors or their admirers describe all the animals depicted on the triptych of Hieronymus Bosch "Garden of Earthly Delights"! Fortunately, some of them are quite recognizable and already have scientific names!

Indeed, if there was no physical instance that was examined, then there can be no question about the validity of such "descriptions". There is a progressive degradation of Western science.

Formally, the description is still valid, but the name is still valid.
The essence of the heated discussion is to unambiguously determine the type fixation, since in the current version the image of an instance is equivalent to the instance itself (the designation of types from images in old works is an example of this), i.e. it is assumed (a very convincing formulation for science...) that the image was drawn from a specific instance (and not averaged, as was often the case before). The same goes for a photograph-it is assumed (again this is a symptomatic word) that the specimen depicted on it physically exists somewhere. This is true if the photo was taken in a museum and the object is a dead specimen on a needle (in a jar, on a die, etc.)-but a photo of an individual in nature does not mean that the specimen was not eaten after 5 minutes by some predatory spider or bird...

Sorry, but what kind of type fixing can we talk about if the proposed name is not suitable for use in zoological nomenclature (see my previous posts)! In this case, there can be no talk about validity (invalidity)!

Sorry, but what kind of type fixing can we talk about if the proposed name is not suitable for use in zoological nomenclature (see my previous posts)! In this case, there can be no talk about validity (invalidity)!

This is a precedent discussed in the press.
Of course, without fixing the type, the name is still not recognized. The most intelligent people will catch this fly, prick it on a needle and re-write it )

Formally, the publication of a description of a new taxon or species based on the photo of a single specimen will be a valid nomenclature act, and the proposed name will be at least appropriate, if otherwise it does not contradict paragraphs 10-20 of the ICZN. That's the problem. According to paragraph 72.5.6 "In the case of a nominative taxon of a species group based on an image or description or on a bibliographic reference to an image or description, the nomenclature type is the depicted or described specimen or instances (and not the image or description itself)", but there are no requirements in the current edition of the ICZN, so that the instance physically exists and can be found and examined after the image is taken from it (see point 73.1.4). The requirements of paragraph 16.4.2 and the recommendations of paragraph 16 apply only to cases where "...the holotype or syntypes are preserved copies...". A photograph (as opposed to a drawing) by itself implies that a copy existed at the time of its execution, unless it is proved that the photo is fake or taken from an artificially mounted copy. If other specimens are not mentioned in the description, the depicted specimen is a holotype by monotype. Recommendation 73B recommends that "The holotype of a new nominal taxon of a species group should be designated as the specimen studied by the author, and not the specimen known to the author only from descriptions or images in the literature", but this is only a recommendation, and meaningfully refers to cases where more than one specimen is known and there is a choice. Recommendation 73C again recommends " publishing at least the following data concerning the holotype ...", but with the caveat "if they are necessary in this case and are known to the author".
In paleontology, a description based on replacement casts, prints, and even traces of vital activity is widely used, i.e. in this case the specimen as such does not exist at all and the fact of its existence is usually unprovable in principle. To what extent the photo can be used to make a diagnosis of a new taxon and whether such a description will be accepted by specialists is another issue that is not regulated by the Code.

Barnaba, the point is that normal experts don't recognize this. If they catch this species, they will describe it again and properly. At best, they will mention this incident and say that it is impossible to compare taxa due to the lack of a holotype. After all, there may be many microscopic details that are not visible in the photo.

Colleagues, in my opinion, Article 16.4.2. should be understood strictly. There are probably some animals that can't possibly be preserved in a state that is accessible for later study. Beetles, thank God, are not one of them. They are saved well. Therefore, even if there is a holotype in any collection, but if there is no clear indication of its storage location in the original publication after 1999, I consider the name automatically unsuitable. Therefore, if the holotype beetle is not captured, then it cannot be placed in the collection, and the name is therefore unsuitable.

Continuation of the banquet.

September letter to Nature (!) with the participation of ICZN members, including the President (!!) in support of (!!!) authors of the fly description based on the photo:

Pape et al 2016

In other words, a real catastrophe can happen if the relevant amendments are made to the ICZN. People got scared and prepared a "Letter 490" (in the words of A.V. Chernyshev), which Nature refused to publish, and it was published in Zootax:

Ceriaco et al 2016

What a heated argument broke out, it is surprising that many "for" such descriptions, I expected that there would be a strong preponderance in the direction of" against " the description of the photo. Miracles.

So the advantage is "against", and strong. The problem is that there are also those who are "for". See what personalities even.

There is an opinion that Nature is slipping, and not only and not so much in the field of entomology, but in others too.

The story is closed. Got out Declaration 45 Commissions where one keyword is used:

"Establishing new species-group taxa without preserved name-bearing type material is permissible under the Code"

Yes, there are a lot of recommendations that you need to save the type when possible, that you need to describe the view in as much detail as possible if the type is not saved, but these are just recommendations. The principled position on the question " Is it possible or not?" has been clarified

Some recent articles on the topic:

Garraffoni, A.R.S. & Freitas, A.V.L. (2017) Photos belong in the taxonomic Code. - a call to give a standard status to the photos themselves, and not to photographed copies.

Rogers et al. (2017) Images are not and should not ever be type specimens - response to a previous post

Ingrish, Riede & Beccaloni (2016) The Pink Katydids of Sabah (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae: Phaneropterinae: Eulophophyllum) with Description of Two New Species - we described the grasshopper from the photo. We tried to make a good article, but it didn't work out - the diagnosis is unclear, in my opinion, and the diagnosis is mute. Not collected because they are very law-abiding (the species is found in Danum Valley).