Hi, first time user so don’t know if it’s the right place.
Just wondering what the process is when a species has been described, but not named.
See here: https://www.padil.gov.au/pollinators/pest/138417
This bee has been seen probably over 30 times, should all observations be ID’d at subgenus or should the species be added to the system under the current name and then updated later if it receives an official permanent name?
Thanks!
if it is not named, it is not described.
It has been just noted that it exists, but no description has been made; which by definition, has to include a name.
iNat doesn’t have a way to represent such species in its taxonomy. However:
One way that users have been keeping track of such observations is via observation fields, e.g. “Undescribed working name”
There are also various projects for observations of undescribed species.
Yes, I’ve just created one.
Thanks!
There’s the introduced to Europe harvestman “Leiobunum species a” which got a pretty thorough description in 2007 but never got a name.
I’m not sure why they didn’t name it there and then - I guess they thought “no point, with this description somebody will work out it’s identity, and any name we give it will be synonymised” but 17 years on and nobody’s worked it out.
It’s always disappointing when researchers essentially do everything but formally describe a species. It often leads to confusion and makes their work less useful.
that species is also not formally described. Definitionally, it is not.
they also meantion they are not even sure if it is a new species or not.
Yes, species is described with words into quite great detail, but it was not named, so it is not scientifically described, and as such that description is scietifically meaningless as a scientific description (nothwithstaning its usefulness in other aspects).
I have no idea why they did not slap a name on that daddy longlegs, but they did not, and it remains undescribed/unknown (my guess is, they did not want to describe an invasive species form specimens in invaded terriory instead of from where it is native).
I have this issue with Lepidoptera. Numerous species have simply been given an ANIC number, which I gather is accepted but cannot be used in scientific papers as it is not a proper name. So on inaturalist I leave my identification at the Genus, then in the comments field put the complete ANIC number and then paste a link to BOLD Australia where the moth is shown with its ANIC number. This appears to work and people can click the clink if they want to verify my identification.
Is there any etiquette around „just“ writing a paper yourself, describing the new species?
Assuming you had a specimen and the required tools (via access to a university, for example) it would be doable, wouldn’t it?
Many times people wait to describe species until the entire genus/group can be revised. Sometimes many “unnamed” species are actually all one species. It’s very hard work to sort everything out, and a lot of times slapping names on one-off descriptions ultimately just creates more confusion.
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/how-do-people-keep-track-of-undescribed-species/48884/3
That can be like waiting until the calends of the Greeks.
Agreed. If it’s distinct, put a name on it. If it eventually ends up as a junior synonym, no big deal, there are lots of those.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.