12 replies to this topic

[dspdrew]

1. Location of collection: Trabuco Canyon, California.
2. Date of collection:  3-10-2015.
3. Habitat of collection:  Chaparral, dry creek bed.
4. Length (from head to gaster):  2.5 mm.
5. Color, hue, pattern and texture:  All yellow.
6. Distinguishing characteristics:
7. Anything else distinctive: 
8. Nest description: Under rocks and dirt in a dry creek bank.

 

 

 

[dspdrew]

Based on the hair, I can see this is certainly not Nylanderia vividula, the only Nylanderia I have seen up until now. The closest match I could find on AntWeb is the single unamed Nylanderia ca01 species. Any ideas?

[James C. Trager]

My first though on seeing that yellow ant was N. hystrix, but this fall way short on the number of bristles. Might be yet another new one! Did you get only one? Any males?

[Mercutia]

I wonder what the constraints are to naming your own new species.

 

Is it just being able to find a new species, or being able to publish about that new species in a scientific journal? Just curious, because I feel like Drew is always stumbling on something new and not in the book.

[James C. Trager]

There are constraints established in a published, highly detailed "Code" by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

 

Highlights: 

It is important for taxonomists to follow the rules set by the ICZN when describing species, these ensure, for example:the description is published in a work that is obtainable in numerous identical copies, as a permanent scientific record (criteria of publication, Chapter 3);

• the scientific name must be spelled using the 26 letters of the Latin alphabet; binominal nomenclature must be consistently used; and new names must be used as valid when proposed (criteria of availability, Chapter 4);
• that names are consistently formed following certain rules; that original spellings can be established (formation of names, Chapter 7);
• that names are based on name-bearing types, the objective standard of reference for the application of zoological names (Chapter 16);
• that general recommendations are followed for ethical behaviour (Appendix A);
• and that best practice should be used to give taxa names which are unique, unambiguous and universal (Appendix .

http://iczn.org/cont...be-new-species 

[Mercutia]

But would it be like:

 

Drew: I'm a civilian citizen and I have found a new species! I shall name her, Nylanderia drewsica

Taxonomist: You don't matter, I'm a scientist, it's going to be named Nylanderia taxoni after me.

Drew: We must dual!

-Epic fight scene ensues-

 

So even if a civilian with basic knowledge of taxonomy found the species, who has the right to name it? What would probably be more accepted as the name in the scientific community?

[dspdrew]

My first though on seeing that yellow ant was N. hystrix, but this fall way short on the number of bristles. Might be yet another new one! Did you get only one? Any males?

 

Very interesting. I got a few workers, but I left the others out of the alcohol last night once I found the best one to mount. I didn't see any alates.

[James C. Trager]

Mercutia: I hate to interrupt your imagining that dramatic fight scene, but here's the answer to the question that followed:

 

The first person who adheres to the correct protocols of publication and type specimen designation and deposition is the author of the new species. This person's last name and the year of publication may follow the Latin binominal in some publications, e. g., Nylanderia hystrix Trager 1984.
If two different authors publish new names for what turns out to be the same species, the name that was published first gets priority, and becomse that species' only valid name.
Any other names become "synonyms". Synonyms also become unavailable for future use to name any other species - to avoid creating what are known as homonyms, two species that have the same name. 
When two species are homonyms, the one described later has to be given a new name. Here's a little story to illustrate:
 

Once upon a time (in 1798), what we now call Camponotus chromaiodes (your favorite, right?) was originally described under the name Formica ferruginea.

But there was an earlier (1791) use of this same name to describe another ant (so the 1798 name became a homonym).

However, the 1791 Formica ferruginea turned out on later examination to be a synonym of Formica rufa.

So:
Formica rufa is the valid name for the ant we still know by that name. 

Formica ferruginea of 1791 is the same as F. rufa, so that name can no longer be used for F. rufa, nor for any other ant species.

The Formica ferruginea published in 1798 turned out to be a Camponotus, a genus name published later on (1861).

Once Camponotus was invented, but because the synonymy mentioned above was overlooked, for a while the second F. ferruginea became known as Camponotus ferrugineus. 
But then, just a few years ago (1995), it was discovered that the name Formica ferruginea was pre-occupied by a real Formica, so a new name had to be coined for the  Camponotus, giving us the name by which we know the species today, Camponotus chromaiodes.

 

All clear?
 

Edited by James C. Trager, March 20 2015 - 1:12 PM.

[Mercutia]

Oh, I see. QUICK DREW! START PUBLISHING!

 

Find a new Crematogaster and name it Crematogaster mercutia!!!!

[Gregory2455]

I am willing to join this race of publishing taxonomists.
Nylanderia smithi? Haha.

[drtrmiller]

Find a new Crematogaster and name it Crematogaster mercutia!!!!

 

Ha! That actually sounds like a reasonable name.

[Gregory2455]

Wait but for real- is this a new species?

[James C. Trager]

Still not known. It might be covered in this recent revision of Nearctic Nylanderia:  Kallal & LaPolla, 2012 PDF

Edited by James C. Trager, March 21 2015 - 6:08 AM.