>What does it require to describe a new species? Who decides if it is valid?
>Is it possible for someone self-taught to get the job done?
The first thing needed is a specimen of the new species. It is much better
to have lots of specimens, so you can have a good idea of the range of
variation and be certain it is not just an unusual representative of a
known species. Ideally, the specimen has preserved tissue, suitable for
anatomical and molecular study. Information about its life habits is also
very helpful. Having the specimen, you must describe it, comparing it to
other similar species. This is perhaps the most difficult part in that you
have to track down as many possibly similar species as possible. A good
library is required. All sorts of obscure publications exist, and
published compilations of the literature overlook things. Looking at other
descriptions will also help you figure out what the most important features
might be. It should also help you to avoid picking a previously used name.
The name needs to be grammatically correct Latin. You can guess
from other species in the genus, but it is safer to look it up or talk with
a high school or college Latin professor, or perhaps your local priest. It
is legal to make up the word, but it is easier for people to remember if
you use existing terms instead of a random assortment of letters.
You then need to find a suitable place to publish it. Getting the
paper reviewed by competent authorities is advisable; formal scientific
journals send submitted papers to reviewers, but if you are thinking about
a shell club newsletter you should check if it is a suitable place for new
species descriptions. You might want someone to unoffically review it if
you are uncertain about whether to publish. Publishing a new species on
the Web is not yet allowed. The publication needs to produce high enough
quality pictures so that the important features can be readily seen. Each
journal has its own way of doing things. Usually, there will be
"Instructions for authors" on the inside front or back cover.
The specimen needs to be given to a museum to ensure both access
and protection for future workers and identified as the holotype. Also, be
sure that the museum curator knows the importance of type and figured
specimens. Any major museum will know to preserve those, but the local
university may not, especially if the person who does taxonomy retires and
is replaced by someone more trendy. Other specimens can be identified as
paratypes. The publication should cite the museum reference numbers so
that other scientists can locate the specimens.
Then you have to wait. The reviewers have to go through the paper
and comment and the editor has to get the comments back to you, often with
additional comments of his own. You then need to either fix the problems
and answer the questions raised by the reviewer or explain to the editor
why you do not think it needs fixed. Once you send it back, hopefully the
editor will be satisfied and you then wait again, until the number of the
journal that your paper is scheduled for gets published. At that point,
you have officially contributed a new name to the scientific literature.
The main challenge for someone self-taught is to get enough
information about all the species that you need to compare the new one to.
There are always additional names published in obscure places. Even major
compilations such as the Zoological Record miss plenty of references. A
paper on mollusks from the Bering Strait gives a new name for something in
the southeastern U.S., and another species from Florida is described in the
Journal of the Paleontological Society of India. Thus, you have to search
as best you can and then see what happens afterwards.
Dr. David Campbell
"Old Seashells"
Department of Geological Sciences
CB 3315 Mitchell Hall
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill NC 27599-3315 USA
[log in to unmask], 919-962-0685, FAX 919-966-4519
"He had discovered an unknown bivalve, forming a new genus"-E. A. Poe, The
Gold Bug
|
