The question Is it correct to describe a new species without type material cannot be answered just by citing the formal requirements of the ICZN.

A species description is not just the establishment of a new name (a baptismal act) but it is also a new hypothesis, i.e. that a previously unnamed taxon exists. Whereas the first issue is dealt by the ICZN, the second depends on the current standards of the scientific community.

Thus, there are two issues involved:

1. The availability of the name. For animals, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999, amended in 2012) dictates that a name is only available if there are one or more type(s) (either a museum specimen or an individual which is illustrated). This is a minimum standard *intended* to ensure that a name is unambiguously linked to one particular taxon. It is important to realise that photographs may not always provide that link. Whether a description ‘succeeds’ depends on multiple factors, including the choice of type material. In rare cases, a photograph can indeed establish the diagnostic morphological features of a new taxon at the time of description, and thus serve as a basis for establishing a link between the name and the new taxon. However, as soon as there are doubts about the identity of the new taxon (e.g. when multiple cryptic species are involved), the original photographs may not provide enough information to resolve the matter. If there is no tissue material from the type specimen, and photographs provide insufficient detail, a name may become a nomen dubium.

2. The taxonomic (i.e. scientific) hypothesis that a previously unnamed taxon exists. Any scientific claim should be verifiable and the existence of a new taxon is therefore best documented with as many lines of evidence as possible, including morphology, DNA, vocalizations and field observations from multiple individuals. The body of evidence required to establish a new taxon may differ among various groups of organisms. For instance, a new cryptic species or a new species in a group with much individual variation would require much more evidence than a highly distinctive taxon with multiple diagnostic external character states. In birds, there are cases where there is little or no doubt that a species described without a museum specimen is valid (e.g. Liocichla bugunorum Athreya, 2006). In other cases, even a series of specimens may be insufficient to establish the validity and status of the taxon (e.g. Heliangelus splendidus Weller, 2011, based on 30 museum specimens).

Clearly, there are good reasons to be extremely cautious when you are naming a species without museum specimens. 

No, is not accepted.  According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), a zoologist when describing a new species should clearly designate a single specimen as its Holotype (Article 73A). If a zoologist, in basing a new nominal species on specimens before him, subjectively associates with it specimens that he beleives to have been missidentified by another author, he should designate his holotype from the former (Article 73B).

When describing a new species, the author must publish the data concerning its holotype (sex, size, locality,  collector name, and place of deposition (Museum).

After the holotype has been labelled, each remaining specimens ( if any) of the type series should be conspicuosly labelled "paratype" in order  clearly to identify the components of the original type-series (Article 73D).

There are some scientific journals  that permit such errors and especially molecular biologists incur in much these errors.

The question Is it correct to describe a new species without type material cannot be answered just by citing the formal requirements of the ICZN.

A species description is not just the establishment of a new name (a baptismal act) but it is also a new hypothesis, i.e. that a previously unnamed taxon exists. Whereas the first issue is dealt by the ICZN, the second depends on the current standards of the scientific community.

Thus, there are two issues involved:

1. The availability of the name. For animals, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999, amended in 2012) dictates that a name is only available if there are one or more type(s) (either a museum specimen or an individual which is illustrated). This is a minimum standard *intended* to ensure that a name is unambiguously linked to one particular taxon. It is important to realise that photographs may not always provide that link. Whether a description ‘succeeds’ depends on multiple factors, including the choice of type material. In rare cases, a photograph can indeed establish the diagnostic morphological features of a new taxon at the time of description, and thus serve as a basis for establishing a link between the name and the new taxon. However, as soon as there are doubts about the identity of the new taxon (e.g. when multiple cryptic species are involved), the original photographs may not provide enough information to resolve the matter. If there is no tissue material from the type specimen, and photographs provide insufficient detail, a name may become a nomen dubium.

2. The taxonomic (i.e. scientific) hypothesis that a previously unnamed taxon exists. Any scientific claim should be verifiable and the existence of a new taxon is therefore best documented with as many lines of evidence as possible, including morphology, DNA, vocalizations and field observations from multiple individuals. The body of evidence required to establish a new taxon may differ among various groups of organisms. For instance, a new cryptic species or a new species in a group with much individual variation would require much more evidence than a highly distinctive taxon with multiple diagnostic external character states. In birds, there are cases where there is little or no doubt that a species described without a museum specimen is valid (e.g. Liocichla bugunorum Athreya, 2006). In other cases, even a series of specimens may be insufficient to establish the validity and status of the taxon (e.g. Heliangelus splendidus Weller, 2011, based on 30 museum specimens).

Clearly, there are good reasons to be extremely cautious when you are naming a species without museum specimens. 

Hi again.

I agree mostly with Luis Miguel, but also in part with George. The question is some complicated when it is clear that the species is endangered. An example of it was the description of two new giant lizards in the Canary Islands, Gallotia intermedia and Gallotia gomerana, which type material was alive at the time of the formal description of both taxa and the journal in question, Herpetologica, accepted that the holotypes and other type material were based on living animals kept in captivity (naturally, with the necessary permissions from the government). 

Dear Thomas,

Thanks. Very interesting paper, which I didn't know. I'll read it as soon as possible...

Best regards. 

The taxonomic recognition of a taxon at the level of species or subspecies is not possible without a proper description and publication. These two requirements are based on a voucher specimen that supports the publication and designation of a name to be recognized.  The voucher specimen (the type specimen) has to be available for comparison in some recognized location that will be responsible for its maintenance.

One possible discussion at the present could be related to the way this specimen is maintained. Normally, voucher specimens are kept in zoological collections (in the case of all birds), but some other possibilities may arise in the near future. Possibilities are zoos, collections of tissue samples for DNA analysis, for example; however, the official recognition of a valid name depends on the designation and maintenance of a type specimen, its description and correct publication, according to the taxonomic principles stated in the valid International Code of Zoological Nomenclature at the present.

A personal comment about the publication mentioned previously. I do not think scientific collection of specimens has a strong impact on natural populations, and in this sense, the justification should be based on the analysis of the current conservation state of the involded taxon, and its threats (in terms of habitat loss, or the modification of the natural conditions on which the perpetuation of the biological group depends on).

Fernando Villaseñor

Ornithology Lab, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo, Mexico

There is a lot of recent discussion about that issue. I recommend a series of articles to everyone, besides the one Dr. Donegan suggested above.

Article On the live holotype of the Galápagos pink land Iguana, Cono...

Article Endangered species and endangered knowledge

Article Does nomenclatural availability of nomina of new species or ...

Article New species without dead bodies: A case for photobased descr...

Article Nomenclatural availability of nomina of new species should a...

Article Proxy types, taxonomic discretion, and taxonomic progress: a...

Article Describing new species in the absence of sampled specimens: ...

Article On typeless species and the perils of fast taxonomy: Typeless species

Article Timeless standards for species delimitation

Article Warning: Potential problems for taxonomy on the horizon?

Criptic or sibling species which are morphologically identical but genetically different can not be separated with a single photograph, so is very risky to describe a new species solely on a photograph. Today the taxonomy must be integrative including morphological, molecular and biological data of the type specimens deposited on public museums so that any researcher can study to confirm the identity of the new taxon to validate or invalidate the species.

Regards,

Luis Miguel

Hi again.

I agree with the view of Luis Miguel about the integrative taxonomy. There are very good examples of it e.g. with the herpetofauna of the Cape Verde Islands, in which the description of new taxa and the revision of all material was undertaken from the point of view of this more modern taxonomy. Another example is the very recent treatment of Fringilla polatzeki, from Gran Canaria Island (Canaries), as a full species, in which morphometrics, genetics and bioacoustics were used to define a new taxon to the specific level. 

Best regards from the Canaries. 

A holotype must be designated.

Dear all, I think that the Code will be changed in the close future. The code need to adapt to the new times. if the changes include the possibilities of use pictures with a normal step, then the code must include a guidelines for use pictures and videos or film. I think the possibility is close and the standardization of how to take a picture of the animal, with scale for size and colors, highlighting morphological characters that are important etc, will be needed and including the type of Camera to be used. Picture Qualities depends of the photographer and from the equipment use too.

I think that today is important identify the species to know the real biodiversity of the world. If we need to wait for an holotype it could difficult the knowledge, delaying the conservation process. The possibility of pictures is an options to do it more easy.

perhaps the description with picture could be a provisional description or something in the final process to description, etc...

The existence or necessity of a holotype is not condition to do a good work describing species. We know how many synonymy are around the world ...

only thinking about it  with you

Dear Thomas,

The short note you attached exposes an interesting view and may open a debate about modern taxonomy and description of new species. Thanks.

Best regards. 

Dear Ruben, I suggest you include in your reading list an opinion just shared by 493 taxonomists from all continents and against the completely inadequate, unnecessary,  and harmful practice of creating a scientific name on the basis of no tangible biological evidence (in the form of a preserved type specimen) that could be exhaustively re-examined, or subjected to further analyses (for example with CT scan, or current generation DNA-sequencing).

If a name is creating on the basis of an illustration, and further research shows that cryptic species might exist, then the taxonomic identification of newly obtained specimens will be fully obstructed. This is because all that a person left as "evidence" was an illustration, from which no additional biological information can be extracted (other than what is shown by the grid of pixels [in the case of photographs]… or ink [in the case of drawings and paintings]).  In such cases, the impossibility to identify specimens would prevent any use of these specimens in any activity that would require and species identification. All the knowledge and data that might exist in the literature, GenBank, GBIF, could not be associated to those specimens because of the lack of a taxonomic identification. An obstruction of scientific progress.

As you download the opinion published in Zootaxa, make sure you do not miss the "Comments" section where a couple of the signatories that seriously dangerous opinion by "Pape et al. (2016)" provided their "unbiased" insights—in reality, these two characters dropped just low-class offenses based on their lack of understanding and their personal interests. 

Best, Eliécer

Article Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and p...

Many thanks for your comments and for the attached paper, very useful and interesting. I'll read it as soon as possible...

Best regards from Italy. 

Is it correct to describe a new species without type material?

At least at the present level of technology which should replace clasic slow methods, the new so called flexible speedy approaches and methods can create more confusions than benefit ... at least for the moment, tomorrow we will see:)  Conservation can be done before the describing of a new possible species based on its habitat conservation if is considered as in need and apropriate.

Has the Code commission recently released a statement about this matter?

Contrary to popular belief the code does not mandate preservation of a dead type specimen, it only recommends it, and recommendations are not mandatory. See the latest declaration by the ICZN. In summary, if you as a taxonomist discover a new species but cannot collect a specimen for whatever reason (ethical, technical, legal, cultural, conservation, etc), you still have *the right* to describe your new species based on whatever supporting evidence you present to your peers that you think can withstand scrutiny, be it photos, videos, tissue or blood samples (DNA), etc. You are correct that majority of type-less species described so far are endangered and listed by IUCN. It is important to name newly discovered vulnerable species because without a scientific name, the species is incommunicable to the wider scientific community and cannot be properly protected (IUCN guidelines). When you have a small population of 17 monkey that you have monitored for years and you know are a new species, removing even one reproductive member of the population to preserve as a holotype may (or may not) have a detrimental effect on the survival of the population as a whole. It is up to you to make the judgement call, and in such cases ICZN gives the right to any ethically responsible taxonomist if they so choose to describe the new species without a dead specimen and still have a valid name based on alternative evidence.   

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.21805/bzn.v73i2.a2

Hi again.

Thanks for your opinion, Vazrick. It's an interesting view, and you'right in the considerations about very rare and endangered species, as there are several recent examples about it. In any case, I'm not completely convinced about the convenience to describe a new species without sample material... 

Best regards. 

Thanks for information, but please suggest in case of ICBN, is it possible to describe and publish new species without type specimens 

Code (ICZN) compliance does not equal a correct practice. You can describe a species in a way that is fully compliant with the Code, and still incur in an absurd, embarrassing practice (e.g., species descriptions lacking preserved specimens) that can obstruct further advances in the taxonomy of a group.

Three recent publications on the topic, which explain the real problem with descriptions lacking preserved specimens, are as follows:

Article Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and p...

Article Specimen collection crucial to taxonomy

Article What is an ‘extant’ type specimen? Problems arising from nam...

Full citations are:

​Ceríaco LMP, Gutiérrez EE, Dubois A and 490 signatories. 2016. Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences. Zootaxa 4196 (3): 435–445. DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4196.3.9

Gutiérrez EE, Pine RH. 2017. Specimen collection crucial to taxonomy. Science 355(6331): 1275. DOI: 10.1126/science.aan0926

Pine RH, Gutiérrez EE. 2018. What is an ‘extant' type specimen? Problems arising from naming mammalian species-group taxa without preserved types. Mammal Review. DOI: 10.1111/mam.12108

Hi again.

Thanks, Eliécer, interesting and useful references for further discussions. For the moment I have read only the first of them...

Best regards.

But not being Code compliant *equals* incorrect nomenclature, and thus an invalid name. Judging from some of the comments on this tread and elsewhere, it is not difficult to see that the majority of taxonomists around the world are hardly aware of, or simply misguided about what is actually in the Code. Most taxonomists, including myself, are thought early on that a type specimen is an absolute necessity, without which the foundations of the science will crumble. In the minds of many, this holds as the Central Dogma of taxonomy. It is simply not true, and it is unfortunately very hard to argue with people holding this religious view with reason and logic.

Lets flesh this out: Taxonomy and Nomenclature are two different things. The ICZN Code only regulates Nomenclatural issues and does not have any say in what constitutes a good taxonomic practice. The taxonomist describing a new species and his/her direct peers within the community specializing on that group are *the only people* eligible to determine what constitutes “correct practice”. For example, an entomologist by definition cannot, and should not dictate (i.e. force) their opinion on what taxonomic practices are correct or incorrect in mammalogy, and vice-versa. It is only up to the mammalogists community, for example, and not taxonomists in other disciplines or ICZN, to judge the presented evidence and decide if a new species of endangered lemur described from Madagascar without a preserved type specimen should be considered taxonomically valid or not (nomenclature is a different issue). If they find the evidence objectionable, it is surprisingly easy to synonymize and sink superfluous names post-facto. It is also up to the mammalogist community to fight abuses such as ridiculous descriptions of cryptozoological primates like bigfoot, published in full nomenclatural compliance but with no taxonomic basis whatsoever.

Majority of taxonomists narrowly focus on the group that they specialize in and never have to think about endangered species, forgetting that changes in the code affects everyone. I study microlepidoptera, many of whom have very little to no useful external characters and are impossible to identify without a genitalia dissection. If I receive a paper to review on a micromoth described from photographs alone, chances are I will immediately reject it because I know the group well enough to know that it simply does not work that way, however I will give the paper a fair reading to see what evidence is presented, if the authors explain why they could not secure a type specimen, and why they feel the need to describe the species under such circumstances. What I would not do however is to try to impose my opinion on everyone else, because I am keenly aware that for example primatologists do not always have this luxury. Nowadays it is very difficult, if not impossible, to get permission to remove individuals of endangered primates from their small populations to preserve for any reason.

And since we are pitching our flawed opinion pieces, have a look at this one as well: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317388623_Rules_for_new_species_from_live_specimens

To conclude: "correct practice" is in the eye of the beholder. A prime example of “incorrect practice” however is to collect 500 signatures from (mostly) uninformed taxonomists to press a personal opinion on millions of other taxonomists through an organization (ICZN) that does not even have the authority or power to regulate taxonomic judgement.

The articles listed above explain the reason-based arguments due to which describing species without preserved specimens can obstruct further advances in taxonomy. A few commenters seem oddly obsessed with repeating again and again the same dogma-based arguments without even try to address the main issue with the ill practice they defend. Such issue is discussed in the articles listed above, and, to facilitate the reading, it is as follows:

"Modern taxonomic descriptions lacking preserved specimens should not be allowed by the Code. High-quality illustrations (paintings, photographs, and videos) can show important aspects of the appearance of an animal; however, many characteristics of the animal are impossible to be adequately, or at all, represented in them—for example, minuscule body features, aspects of the animal’s internal anatomy and, of course, its DNA. Although a researcher might consider that a given set of illustrations shows characteristics that he/she deems sufficient to distinguish a presumably new species from all other species that have been described until that moment, further research can show that other species with those same characteristics exist (including new, unnamed species). When at least one physical specimen is available (even a severely damaged, fragmentary, or dissolved one), it is often possible to find useful characteristics that could distinguish it from another species. This task is enormously facilitated by current sequencing technologies that have enabled scientists to obtain whole genomes, even from fragmentary and degraded biological material that is hundreds of thousands of years old (4) or that has been fixed with formalin (5). Moreover, it is to be expected that new technologies will also aid in new, efficient methods to preserve specimens."

I see no point in discussing with someone who will dogmatically repeat the same ill arguments (taken from other authors) over and over again while ignoring the main issue of the discussion (which is in the previous paragraph, in quotes). Hence, I remove myself from this thread, but I might consider replying to publications with novel views/arguments directly relevant to the issue (described in the previous paragraph). I hope some of the readers benefit from this and my previous comment. Best, Eliécer

A side thing to the discussion: It is incredible how long this debate is still going on, but looking close, some of the most active debate stars, have barely published taxonomical works, so it is a fail of the journals still feeding these trolls!

Excellent! thank you for proving my point. You are correct, these issues indeed have been discussed ad-nauseam since the 1980s and yet they still bear repeating because some of the dogmatic opponents of the Code do not seem to have the desire to understand them. At the risk of repeating myself, here are my comments.

"Modern taxonomic descriptions lacking preserved specimens should not be allowed by the Code. [designation of a type specimen is a taxonomic decision. The Code does not regulate taxonomic decisions. You are barking on the wrong tree]. High-quality illustrations (paintings, photographs, and videos) can show important aspects of the appearance of an animal; however, many characteristics of the animal are impossible to be adequately, or at all, represented in them—for example, minuscule body features, aspects of the animal’s internal anatomy and, of course, its DNA [regurgitated nonsense; of course they don’t. That is not the point and you know this very well]. Although a researcher might consider that a given set of illustrations shows characteristics that he/she deems sufficient to distinguish a presumably new species from all other species that have been described until that moment, further research can show that other species with those same characteristics exist (including new, unnamed species) [in which case, a taxonomic decision can easily be made, either to sink the name or to designate a Neotype. what is the big deal?]. When at least one physical specimen is available (even a severely damaged, fragmentary, or dissolved one), it is often possible to find useful characteristics that could distinguish it from another species [agreed, but a physical specimen can also be useless or misleading in all kinds of ways]. This task is enormously facilitated by current sequencing technologies that have enabled scientists to obtain whole genomes, even from fragmentary and degraded biological material that is hundreds of thousands of years old (4) or that has been fixed with formalin (5) [agreed, but again, not the point, and you know it]. Moreover, it is to be expected that new technologies will also aid in new, efficient methods to preserve specimens."

The point that you are deliberately avoiding is that you tried to take away taxonomists freedom to do their work properly and as they see fit, and you failed. I am glad that ICZN Commissioners have a broader perspective on things than you and your kind. Taxonomic freedom should not be regulated, period. I am sorry that you are removing yourself from this discussion since I was prepared to show you how wrong you are on every aspect of your dogma, especially since they are thoroughly discussed and debunked many times in the past, but alas. Maybe next time.

What a low class style. Those adjetives "regurgitated" etc. I tend to never decent to the level of people who express themselves like this, however, you for once tried to address the main issue. Unfortunately, you failed. But, I will allow myself a few more lines, in recognition to your first attempt to address the real issue. First, the fact that a holotype represents the link between a name and populations deemed to belong to a species (or subspecies), makes its designation a matter of taxonomy (agree with you) as well as of nomenclature (disagree with you and your repeated dogma). If those that dictates what is on the Code irresponsibly maintain the current "everything goes" approach, then obstruction to taxonomy (the science to which nomenclature serves) is expected. Your attempt to respond simply shows that you have not even understood the main issue.

Our text: Although a researcher might consider that a given set of illustrations shows characteristics that he/she deems sufficient to distinguish a presumably new species from all other species that have been described until that moment, further research can show that other species with those same characteristics exist (including new, unnamed species)

Your respond: [in which case, a taxonomic decision can easily be made, either to sink the name or to designate a Neotype. what is the big deal?].

Let me explain you:

The issue described above is the situation that a responsable researcher would face when collecting additional material, after someone (that thinks in the same way that you) irresponsably described a species without securing a preserved specimen (or at the very least fragmentary biological tissues of what was once a live animal!, as indicated in some of the publications listed above) to serve as a type. Your proposed solutions would not work. Let me teach you:

First, you suggested to sink the species. Why would you do so? You would do so if you could ***DEMONSTRATE*** that the species has already been described. Unfortunately, in the case of cryptic, or extremely similar species, you ***cannot DEMONSTRATE*** if the new material (new specimens collected, for example) belongs or not to the species that was described securing only a photo, drawing, or sketch. Nomenclature fails here because there was never an adequate link between the name designated and the real item in nature to which the name was imposed (an alleged species).

Your second solution: designate a Neotype. Why would you do so? You would do so if you could ***DEMONSTRATE*** that the newly collected material corresponds to the species already described without a preserved type. Unfortunately, in the case of cryptic, or extremely similar species, you ***cannot DEMONSTRATE*** if the newly collected specimens belong or not to the species that was described securing only a photo, drawing, or sketch. Nomenclature fails here because there was never an adequate link between the name designated and the real item in nature to which the name was imposed (an alleged species).

The worst is that the newly collected material, which might contain cryptic or extremely similar species to those described without preserved specimens, won't be able to be indentified nor described as new species because nobody will ever know if they belong or not to the species named based on illustrations. Hence, nomenclature failures obstruct taxonomy. Bravo!

I am not sure if you finally understood the issue with the overly-simplified explanation I generously provided to you. I will do my best to stay away of any informal communication from you for the reason stated in the first line of this comment.

Oh! You are still here. Good. Sorry if my language offended you, but I am honest and I describe statements as I see them.

Thanks for explaining to me your hypothetical scenarios in a language that a simple man like me can understand. You did a great job! but kindly also provide one example - a single example will do - of a case where such a thing has ever happened; i.e. a taxonomic conundrum created by the discovery of new species, or some other new evidence, in a group that turned out to be a complex of cryptic species where also exists a species described previously without a type. I bet you cannot find one, because such a scenario only exist in your imagination. Predictions are dime a dozen and not really worth anything.

But assuming your hypothetical scenario ever happened, your questions about my two choices (why would I do so?) go right back to my original point about taxonomic freedom. Assuming I am a competent taxonomist and I know the group well enough, I will evaluate the original description alongside the new evidence, make a decision as to what needs to be done, and present my arguments to my peers to justify my decision. Loss of types, or loss of characters on damaged specimens, is a valid argument for sinking such names and is done routinely in entomology, usually in the context of a taxonomic revisions (Old names whose identities cannot be verified without reference to a type specimen are often sunk under one of the other available names in the group to avoid “orphaned” names). If I think my specimens nicely fit the description of the previously described species whose type is lost, then I am also free to designate a specimen as its Neotype.

Competent taxonomists who describe new species in the absence of a type specimen are not stupid (except that bigfoot guy). They are often obliged to do so because a) they work in the context of a taxonomic revision and cannot ignore a known new species for which no specimens yet exist, b) there are immediate or peripheral conservation concerns, or c) simply the fact that they fear being scooped by others. Whatever the case may be, at present they have *the right* (I cannot emphasize this enough) to present their available evidence and arguments to their peers and proceed with the description, and as it stands, it is up to the peers to evaluate the quality of the evidence and decide if there is any merit to the new taxon or not. And that is how its should be. A dictatorial verdict taking away this freedom would not be desirable by any measure.

I hope you understood my simplified language as well. I am not really seeking any informal communication with you; that ship sailed long time ago. But it is ultimately up to you.

Eduardo: I enjoyed your short note that came out last year in Zootaxa about this issue, and I completely agree with you there. I have a question for you: Having followed all the discussions on this issue since, and knowing what you know now, would you still sign the Cerico et al petition if you were asked to do so today?

I think I will, but maybe taking more active role in developing a few points under the light of the new recommendations

Editing your comments and typing in bold, caps lock only shows how angry you are, Gutierrez. I perfectly understood what you meant, no need to scream. Calm down. Gentlemen do not scream, remember?

What you do not understand about taxonomy is that names are not written in stone, they are just names. If I am reviewing a group and I have unverifiable, floating names pertaining to my group in literature, I am allowed to force them into synonymy. And unlike your story I am not making this up, there are hundreds of examples in Lepidoptera alone. Here is one:

Vactor Tousey Chambers was a careless lepidopterist in the 19th century who described hundreds species of micromoths, mostly with terse and simple descriptions. Many of his types were subsequently lost to dermestids, and since his names could not be verified by his poor descriptions, they effectively became unverifiable ghost names. Entomologist Ronald Hodge in his catalogue of Moths of America North of Mexico (1983) used his judgement to force all of Chambers' orphaned names into synonymy with what seemed to be their closest relative, and he solved the problem effectively once and for all. And everyone is happy now.

If the original description is poor, and the taxon is unverifiable for whatever reason (including lack of a type, or characters that cannot be seen in damaged types or photographs), I have the freedom and the right to use my judgement and force the name into synonymy. “What is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence” (Christopher Hitchens). The fact that you, the most vocal opponent of taxonomic freedom, do not know that you can do this boggles my mind, and shows why you are so dogmatic in your beliefs. I am not the one insisting that names are holy and cannot be destroyed, it is you. To me they are just names, the person who described them was just a person like you and me (not a god), and as a competent taxonomist I am free to use my own judgement to deal with them as I see proper. And if my peers agree with my judgement, it is the end of story.

I am not going back to edit my previous comments, so if you have a rebuttal, post a reply. Otherwise I consider this a win for myself and yet another miserable loss for you.

Very briefly, as it is not pleasant to communicate with someone who uses a childish style poisoned with *attempts* to offend, in what should otherwise be an exchange of views among scientific colleagues:

First, there is nothing you can do or say that would offend me. Not from you. I simply find it unnecessary for me to deal with people who cannot communicate with at least a minimum of education.

Second, sure, I edited the previous comments to (1) correct spelling/grammar mistakes; (2) use bold/all caps in key words/sentences I thought you simply did not pay attention to (given your replies).

Third, you are trying to equate loss of once preserved holotypes (due to bad preservation techniques, war, natural disasters) with the irresponsable act of deliberately creating a name into a group without providing tangible biological material. Not the same thing.

I lack time for you. The end.

You cannot demonstrate that there are any practical differences between these two. In both cases you have to deal with absence of a type specimen.

I do not pretend to be a gentleman, and then try to undermine an entire field of science with my irresponsible and despicable actions. I have no respect for people who try to take away my rights. Good day to you, too - you are an absolute waste of time.

It's remarkable how much ink is spilt and hot air generated again and again on nomenclatural matters. Here is my view: Even if a supposedly new species is only documented by digital recordings (pictures, sounds), the figured specimen(s) constitute a holotype or type series, as the case may be. As no physical material of this species is deposited in a public institution, the entire type series is deemed lost from the outset. If this situation later became an obstacle to taxonomic progress, a neotype could and should be designated, which then must be a physical specimen or part thereof. In conclusion, introducing new species without specimens can be done under the Code, but I consider it very bad practice. By the way, why not put this question directly to the Commission ?

Yusuf,

1. I did not pose any question to which the answer could be No.

2. I made a distinction between cases in which a name-bearing type never existed, and cases where it is not available because it was left out in the wild.

If you were right, why does this entire discussion going on at all ??