Dear Ammar,

It seems to me that those who describe new species can be grouped into two classes.

Some describe new species hastily  without making in depth studies. They do not mind the slightest even if the names given by them soon become synonyms.

Some others make serious studies before publishing new species. They think that their new species should stand good and they should never become a synonym.

Those who attribute the term sp. nova affine to ....., but do not publish them as new species probably think so but could not confirm it to be a new species. So they did not prefer to publish them. In old herbarium sheets such annotations can often be seen and many of them indeed turn out to be good species.

Best wishes,

Subir.

Dear Ammar

Your grievance over the half identification process is quite natural - for the complete identification and establishment of the species characters biosystematic study is necessary for that purpose several years of close observation on a species is necessary including its reproductive biology.  but often it is not possible to carried out this of study due to various difficulties and complexities another one vital point is the those botanist mentioned the newly discovered species as the Sp. nova affini to --- but didnot published it ias a new species are not sure abut the identity of that species.    

Dear Ammar

Publication of new species is really a difficult process and  if it has to stand indepth study has to be done.  Generally in flora work such indepth study is not expected, but in revision studies more detailed work is done.

While publishing Flora works, if the author find distinct characters for a plant and not sure to say it is new without detailed study may put it as sp. nova and he may publish it later after study and confirmation. Sometimes after study it mat turn to some variations or even ecotypes, then will not get published. 

You also may not expect that in-depth studies from general flora works.

Just one more thought on that topic: it is, unfortunately, nowaydays not very rewarding to describe new species nor, what would be even more important, carry out and publish thorough revisions of certain groups of organisms. Papers on the taxonomy, nomenclature and systematics of plants can only be published in journals with a small impact factor, unless you incorporate often useless techniques that make your approach "novel" to use a meaningless term often heard from editors.  But since in this times of "trend research" and "external-funds-addiction" every scientist is a slave to the impact, describing species is neat, but in terms of making a scientific carreer a waste of time. Sad but true. And their is a growing lack of experts for certain organisms since the facts described above do not really encourage universities and academic teachers to engage in these fields in their courses and hence also not students to take an interest in these classical desciplines. This will haunt us later, unless there are no organims left to study in a few years...

Regards

Tilo

I think that this can be different causes. For example, a botanist is not a specialist taxonomists for this group of plants, but a specialist in flora and he sees that these plants are not very similar to those that he considered this species. He's in trouble. After all, he does not know whether similar species already described, or not yet. It as if does by this record a note for itself or for other researchers that this sample you need to pay more attention. He also assume that that is probably a new species. It is desirable to show such specimens to the monographer of a genus in order that he dispelled doubts and specify the status.

This is because a lot of nowadays scientists  have phd and it is easy to get a phd these days. and all of them want to be famous and professors without working for it so hard........ so don't be surprised it might become even more and more dramatic.

I agree with some of the opinions already given. The identification of an specimen as: sp. nov. related to a species already described in a certain genre, indicating this in a signed and dated review label, is in my opinion a correct and usual procedure in taxonomic work. To express a comparative and diagnostic opinion on a new plant, involves a degree of compromise. A greater compromise than if only sp. nov. is indicated without providing other information.

The problem arises when the author of this tentative identification (in schaedis), does not confirm his opinion, by validating it by publishing that suggested name in a reasonably short time. This situation is unfortunately common in herbaria.

The causes or reasons can be varied: - Incomplete available morphological information, insufficient to describe the plant with clarity. -Variability detected by studying more specimens, which discouraged its cataloguing as a new species. -Not finalized taxonomic study, excessively prolonged by the lack of time of the researcher, etc. This last situation may be related to low profitability in the curriculum of this type of taxonomic publications in the career of the researcher. Researchers tend to prioritize the publication of other papers of greater impact, perhaps within a team or group, usually taxonomically inconclusive.

I agree with several opinions expressed above. Essentially when a taxonomist stated Sp. nova he or she is not really sure of it's status and as has been mentioned, not enough morphological characteristics for detailed description, absence of flowers or only one specimen was available. Taxonomists need more than one specimen incase there are variants in the wild population, which maybe confused as new species.

I also also agree with the opinions cited by  the above mentioned researchers.The new species should be further subjected to phytochemical, cytological and molecular studies to confirm  the identity of the species and also to assign its phylogeny.