Specimens presented in a scientific paper

[satyrinae]

Hi guys,

A photographer friend of mine found a new species for the country and it was agreed to put this finding in a scientific paper. Are the photos of live insects enough to validate the records or dead specimens need to be set in a museum or somewhere available to the public?  What are the standards? Apparently in botany, a photo is enough.

Your views would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.

[wollastoni]

It depends :

For a new species description :
Well we all know the extreme possibility of photoshop... so of course, all serious periodicals MUST refuse description based on picture only, otherwise it will soon be a total mess full of fake names.

For a new record for a country :
Live pictures are fine to me, most important is the seriousness of the author. Both a picture or a pinned specimen can have fake data.

[satyrinae]

Thanks a lot. It is Azanus ubaldus for Malta as suddenly from nowhere we have at least 2 breeding colonies so far :-)

[wollastoni]

Cool ! A new European Lycaenidae then !

Must have been imported with acacias.
Hope he will come to continental Europe too !

Very interesting record.

[satyrinae]

Actually it has already been recorded from the Canary Islands. :-(

[wollastoni]

Yes I know but the Canaries are not really Europe (except politically)

[Adam Cotton]

Jul 14, 2016 17:07:39 GMT satyrinae said:

Thanks a lot. It is Azanus ubaldus for Malta as suddenly from nowhere we have at least 2 breeding colonies so far :-)

Well, you're not actually talking about naming a new taxon in the scientific paper, so there is absolutely no scientific pressure whatsoever to provide dead specimens to validate the new record of the species in Malta at all. A paper documenting the fact that the species was observed as a new record for Malta with photos of live specimens offered as proof is fine to record the presence of the species.

Naming a new taxon purely from photos has been done several times recently (I remember a monkey and an African species of Diptera). The ICZN Code does not forbid this, and as long as type specimens are designated the new name is not invalid. The Code only states that if the holotype or syntypes are extant specimens their depository must be stated. If they were not actually collected then they are not 'specimens' and cannot be proven to be extant, so there is no requirement to deposit them in a collection. Personally I would not do this for a butterfly, but sometimes there are reasons to name a new taxon without actually having any dead specimens, such as the case of the new species of monkey where the holotype was released after donating a tissue sample for DNA.

Very good quality photos of the live African fly were published in the original description, but naming a new taxon from photos of a living specimen does risk potential problems in future if it is found there is more than one species that looks very similar to the photos of the new taxon. It may be difficult to be certain which actual species the name belongs to.

Adam.

[satyrinae]

Adam,
As usual your comments go beyond the words as one can learn a lot from them :-)
Thanks a lot for the detailed info.
Jon