Whether something is distinct enough to be seen as its own species is something your experience can answer. Are the differences between it and the most related or closest species equivalent, or even more than other species delineations in the genus? You might find that the answer doesn’t even agree with the existing taxonomy.
1 Like
My answer to the main question: any taxonomic group with visual distinctions that is understudied or overlooked. Any time lab work or genetics or dissection come into play, amateurs are at a disadvantage.
1 Like
Right, but the question is which taxa are amateurs “most able” to make discoveries. And I think that generally prioritizes instances when the amateur themselves can make such a recognition. They can certainly target areas and provide data that then leads to eventual discoveries, but I was focusing on those which are more immediate and obvious.
2 Likes
As a tangent: any taxonomic group that is understudied, even if it does not have visual distinctions, can increase your chances of having a species named after you if you do systematic collecting and a taxonomist gets the specimens. Platydesmus starsongii?
I follow a Navajo botanist named Arnold Clifford on Facebook and he regularly describes new species from the four corners states.
iNaturalist has definitely opened my eyes to the undiscovered diversity in our backyards and neighborhoods.
1 Like
Then I have to decide on the waiting game. Sometimes I do wait, usually depending on yoga position and circulation.
I proved this a few years ago with a Strepsipteran and a subterranean millipede. I’ve only seen one of each, and both were a novel species currently unknown. I only knew this because I was aware of their general existence in the world, and simultaneously aware that no species had been recorded from my part of the country. In that case, it wasn’t possible to visually tell the species were new or unique, but the circumstances were telling.
3 Likes
The answer to the OP’s question is also depending on what actually can count as a 'discovery'.
Would it only include species that the finder is able to recognize as ‘new’, based on morphology/coloration - or that a certain finding just evokes suspicion that then has to be subsequently confirmed by an expert.
In the latter case, my take on this topic would be: check (rare) plants for galls, mines, scale insects, psyllids, mildew and other tiny organisms.
Because IDing the plant would be easy and as a next step, search available sources whether some relationship is mentioned for the respective taxon.
Go one step further, collect the galls and mines and try to get some parasitoids out of them - the chances are even higher of discovering something new, but you very likely won’t be able to tell until an expert has look at them (might even include DNA barcoding).
I once collected a not so commonly found Drosophilid in a Botanical Garden. It was found on a fungus, but had itself a parasitic fungus growing on its head. In the literature, there was no mention of this genus being infected, I sent it to an expert - et voilà! A new species!
2 Likes
Anyone with an internet connection right now has access to more of the scientific literature than most researchers in academia did even a decade ago.
2 Likes
Yes, and there is full-text search on it, good images, e-mail with colleagues, and so on. I had a discussion some time ago with a friend entomologist about why are now able to tackle taxonomic problems unresolved for long time, and technology is great part of the explanation. Collaboration is the rest…
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.