Salve, amice! In my oppinion, record of a new species for the fauna of some country does not need to be published in scientific paper, as far as PhD in which the species s mentioned for some country is available, id est as far as it is indexed in relevant databases. As far as researches from your field of study are able to find that record and as far as they are familiar with that record, it can be 'published/mentioned' in PhD, Master thesis or congress poster/lecture summary. If a new species is described in PhD, than it SHOULD be published because of the rules of ICZN (= availability of published sources).

Thank you all very much for your quick answers. It's not a new species for the science (N. Sp. = Nova Species or Sp.N. = Species Nova), only a new record for Romania's fauna. No, I haven't found that Thesis online, at least just for now. I'll keep you in touch with the situation.

Daniel,

There are sets of formal rules for validly publishing a new species, international Codes of nomenclature.  The rules differ for plants and fungi (same Code), animals, and microbes.  The key is "validly published" which is generally not met in a Ph.D. thesis because these scholarly works are do not fit the definitions of "validly published".  If, as others have noted in earlier comments, you are wondering about a first report of a species in a particular geographic area, then I see no problem with citing a Ph.D. thesis as the first source of the information.  Getting portions of the thesis written up and published in a book or journal is useful because such methods of publication can greatly increase availability of the report. Changes in the formal Codes in recent years have made validly publishing a new species much easier and generally quicker, and the Codes are available on line.   The Codes or formal and can read like legalese documents so your student might want to ask for help if he/she have never published a new species description before.

It will be a unique value addition!!!!!

Hi,

The rule of newly recorded species is not so strict. However, in my opinion, I will suggest you publish another scientific note to emphasize its existence and point out its deposition of voucher specimens even if many people have known its existence or present in informal  reports as degree thesis or newspaper.  

You should write a note if you recorded a new species in a country. You don't know if other people are writting something about the distribution of this species. They could need your information. Thus, i suggest you to report it in a short comunication in a journal.

You are mixing two different things. A thesis is an academic document not a peer-reviewed scientific article published by a journal. However, it can be done as it was my own thesis... as long as you comply with each of these two "worlds" needs. Also do not forget your local environment: some faculties encourage their student to develop new lines while others take it as a failure when their students engage different subjects than their "mentors". Assuming you have the support of your Faculty, I recommend to add to your advisers somebody with expertize on the species you talk about.

You got very good advices from the previous answers regarding the "scientific side", so lets put together the ideas:

1) it should end with two documents, your thesis for your Faculty but also you should submit is it as a scientific paper/article to some journal. Thesis have been used as references on similar cases in the past, but it is not the best practice since they are not even peer reviewed documents. So you have to do both;

2) a thesis expects you will show analytical abilities rather than just limit yourself describing the case. Find variables on this case, you can analyze. You have to start by reviewing the knowledge state of this species. A comprehensive review. Then see how this applies to the location you found it. Perhaps the environment has some similarities or it is completely different, adding a totally new element to what we could expect of this species. The known range is nearby the location of this record or there are reasons to think it could be a separate population? is this an exotic or recently introduced species or this record results from a radiation from a known neighboring population or perhaps it belongs to a relict population?  You can pose yourself questions like these to bring this record to a more analytical field to suit a thesis purpose;

3) The taxonomic task is a must and it has to be flawless. You have to master the diagnostic characters etc. To prove it is species A and not an unknown or new species, or just a different individual phenotype. Even on single individuals this can be proven by using the right characters. Do not limit your review to "google". Go to local museums, ask the old guys... You may even find this species was previously described long time ago, but under a different name and become a rediscovery... Open yourself to all these possibilities and do the homework of analyzing each one.

4) Try to find out the "role" of this species from known environments (food web, life history etc). You have to know this species very well. Then pose yourself questions regarding this specific record. You can develop a model of how do you think this species can be part of, or assembles on the environment you found it. The possible interactions within the biological community. If this has the look of an introduced species, then you can expect some changes on the community. If it belongs to a relict, then local differences on the community may fit geographic patterns like barriers promoting isolation etc. The biogeographic and the ecologic approaches, among many others, can enrich your analysis. Check the status of this individual (health, ontogeny, ecophysiological constraints, etc). So do not limit yourself to present a new record for this species extending its known range. Doing that, would not fit a thesis but a short report/communication. Analyzing the possible explanations for its presence is a must, but also its probable role in the community based on the comprehensive review you have to do on the species.

I hope this helps you to find your way. As you see this is one case that can provide two different outcomes fitting the academic as well as the scientific world. It has been done before so it can be done again. Go for it!

ICZN, Reccomendation B12 - L. is not correct in zoology, but Linnaeus, always full name! It is because zoology lack idex of authors names with abbreviations.

New species records must be published in a scientific journal to be valid. What I say is not to distrust the author of the thesis and their supervisor, however, in the journals which publish new records of species usually send manuscripts to reviewers who are specialists in genus of the species or on the biodiversity of the particular region where the species was collected.

I totally agree with Miguel Garcia, Daniel, if you want to have greater validity, sends a short comunication or a paper to a specialized scientific journal so that it can be valid, as they often are sent to review the contributions to taxonomic specialists . In good time, the record is good news.

I also agree with the views of Christian Delfin and Miguel A. Garcia-Martinez.

I agree with anterior statements: Is necessary to publish in per-rewiewed scientific journals to validate the new record for the country. An specialized journal that published this type of record is http://www.checklist.org.br/. Is a good journal to publish this records, that is difficult to publish in others journals. 

Hi,

I think everyone that has answered may be misunderstanding the original question. New record of a species for a country fauna is different from a new species for science, however if is a new record or a new species you can publish in per-rewiewed scientific journals. Also you can create a DOI number for your thesis worrk  and upload the thesis on PDF format in Research Gate to get visibility.

I agree with Luis Miguel, the original  question was misunderstood. A new species for a country may not be a new species at all. He said "Xxxus yyyus, L., 1758". The only valid point of criticism is from Josip, the abbreviation "L." is not correct.

Thank you all for your valuable answers !

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318760929_My_Village_Biodiversity_Documentation_of_Western_Ghats_Biodiversity_through_Network_of_Students_and_Teachers

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331076568_Global_Warming_Mitigation_Through_Carbon_Sequestrations_in_the_Central_Western_Ghats/stats

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323180165_Salient_Ecological_Sensitive_Regions_of_Central_Western_Ghats_India

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332331409_Sustainable_Management_of_Bannerghatta_National_Park_India_with_the_Insights_in_Land_Cover_Dynamics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301609558_Geospatial_analysis_of_forest_fragmentation_in_Uttara_Kannada_District_India