57 replies to this topic

[ClaytonBaby]

Freshly eclosed worker with the side spikes present.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClaytonBaby]

Queen with side spikes and top spikes marked.
Not sure if this type of stuff helps with Identification but I’m curious to learn nonetheless.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ReignofRage]

Those are present on many Pogonomyrmex and thus isn't conducive to IDing. The actual propodeal spines, the central ones you marked, are the only ones that matter and make it P. subnitidus.

[gcsnelling]

The wind event mentioned is about the only logical explanation I can think of. Not much else can say as others have offered a great deal of valuable input.

[ClaytonBaby]

Those are present on many Pogonomyrmex and thus isn't conducive to IDing. The actual propodeal spines, the central ones you marked, are the only ones that matter and make it P. subnitidus.

man thank you so much you’ve been a lot of help!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClaytonBaby]

The wind event mentioned is about the only logical explanation I can think of. Not much else can say as others have offered a great deal of valuable input.

Would be a wild flight. Do they by chance come from a area that the Mojave river runs through? Maybe they floated over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PurdueEntomology]

Upshot, to all of this is that delimiting species, especially in often morphological ambiguous complexes, takes time and experience working with real specimens, familiarity with the unique morphological characters that are key to that genus along with updated and accurate geographical distribution, possible hybridization zones that can throw off usage of accepted morphological characters, proper equipment and patience.  

[gcsnelling]

Upshot, to all of this is that delimiting species, especially in often morphological ambiguous complexes, takes time and experience working with real specimens, familiarity with the unique morphological characters that are key to that genus along with updated and accurate geographical distribution, possible hybridization zones that can throw off usage of accepted morphological characters, proper equipment and patience.  

This is the main reason I have the problems I have with some of the folks that put names on ants over at Inaturalist. We get far too many ant images being identified down to subspecies level based on images that are barely good enough to get an accurate species or even genus level Id. Don't get me wrong the place is amazing and some of the folks making Ids are fantastic but there are also a large number of bandwagoners that just jump on an incorrect Id and propel it onward. The matter is simple, you gotta have specimens in hand and accurately Identified reference material to compare with to get an accurate Id. You can't just base it things like color, range or a hunch. That is all valuable data true but you need the physical, in your hand specimens.

[PurdueEntomology]

 

Upshot, to all of this is that delimiting species, especially in often morphological ambiguous complexes, takes time and experience working with real specimens, familiarity with the unique morphological characters that are key to that genus along with updated and accurate geographical distribution, possible hybridization zones that can throw off usage of accepted morphological characters, proper equipment and patience.  

This is the main reason I have the problems I have with some of the folks that put names on ants over at Inaturalist. We get far too many ant images being identified down to subspecies level based on images that are barely good enough to get an accurate species or even genus level Id. Don't get me wrong the place is amazing and some of the folks making Ids are fantastic but there are also a large number of bandwagoners that just jump on an incorrect Id and propel it onward. The matter is simple, you gotta have specimens in hand and accurately Identified reference material to compare with to get an accurate Id. You can't just base it things like color, range or a hunch. That is all valuable data true but you need the physical, in your hand specimens.

 

This is why we have holotypes:  a specimen that represents the physical representative of the species. All morphological characteristics of a species must confirm to the holotype, which should have been thoroughly examined to lay out the delimiting characters. 

[ClaytonBaby]

Upshot, to all of this is that delimiting species, especially in often morphological ambiguous complexes, takes time and experience working with real specimens, familiarity with the unique morphological characters that are key to that genus along with updated and accurate geographical distribution, possible hybridization zones that can throw off usage of accepted morphological characters, proper equipment and patience.

This is the main reason I have the problems I have with some of the folks that put names on ants over at Inaturalist. We get far too many ant images being identified down to subspecies level based on images that are barely good enough to get an accurate species or even genus level Id. Don't get me wrong the place is amazing and some of the folks making Ids are fantastic but there are also a large number of bandwagoners that just jump on an incorrect Id and propel it onward. The matter is simple, you gotta have specimens in hand and accurately Identified reference material to compare with to get an accurate Id. You can't just base it things like color, range or a hunch. That is all valuable data true but you need the physical, in your hand specimens.

This is why we have holotypes: a specimen that represents the physical representative of the species. All morphological characteristics of a species must confirm to the holotype, which should have been thoroughly examined to lay out the delimiting characters.

is there a singular holotype for every region in place or is does each region have its own holotype? Is there a generally accepted holotype for each species already or is this something I would collect myself and then develop my own identification chart with based off the area? Sorry if any of these questions don’t make sense, I have never heard of a holotype and I’m super curious!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gcsnelling]

Every species of plant or animal has or should have its own holotype or some sort of type material for reference. It has gotten muddier now that photographs, at least in some cases are allowed to be considered type material and new species can be described based on a picture. Something I strongly disagree with I don't care how unique the insect/animal is. With the ability today to manipulate images this leaves things wide open for taxonomic vandals.

 

https://phys.org/new...escription.html

Edited by gcsnelling, September 17 2023 - 10:07 AM.

[PurdueEntomology]

 

 

 

Upshot, to all of this is that delimiting species, especially in often morphological ambiguous complexes, takes time and experience working with real specimens, familiarity with the unique morphological characters that are key to that genus along with updated and accurate geographical distribution, possible hybridization zones that can throw off usage of accepted morphological characters, proper equipment and patience.

This is the main reason I have the problems I have with some of the folks that put names on ants over at Inaturalist. We get far too many ant images being identified down to subspecies level based on images that are barely good enough to get an accurate species or even genus level Id. Don't get me wrong the place is amazing and some of the folks making Ids are fantastic but there are also a large number of bandwagoners that just jump on an incorrect Id and propel it onward. The matter is simple, you gotta have specimens in hand and accurately Identified reference material to compare with to get an accurate Id. You can't just base it things like color, range or a hunch. That is all valuable data true but you need the physical, in your hand specimens.

This is why we have holotypes: a specimen that represents the physical representative of the species. All morphological characteristics of a species must confirm to the holotype, which should have been thoroughly examined to lay out the delimiting characters.

is there a singular holotype for every region in place or is does each region have its own holotype? Is there a generally accepted holotype for each species already or is this something I would collect myself and then develop my own identification chart with based off the area? Sorry if any of these questions don’t make sense, I have never heard of a holotype and I’m super curious!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

A holotype is the  single type specimen when a new species is described.  One cannot just submit it.  Currently one would submit a species description though a peer reviewed journal with sufficient evidence to warrant a new species population designation. 

 

This is a brief overview:

just-our-types-a-short-guide-to-type-specimens

 

The INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE  is where you will look to find agreed upon International standardized rules in assigning species/genus/family etc designations to zoological organisms ( it can be daunting).  It is where I have had to go to confirm naming the species I am on my 3rd revision in describing.

As for type:

 

72.10. Value of name-bearing types

Holotypes, syntypes, lectotypes and neotypes are the bearers of the scientific names of all nominal species-group taxa (and indirectly of all animal taxa). They are the international standards of reference that provide objectivity in zoological nomenclature and must be cared for as such (see Recommendations 72D to 72F). They are to be held in trust for science by the persons responsible for their safe keeping.

 

This is why I will be submitting a single holotype to Harvard along with ants from the same colony as paratypes, I will also submit paratypes to the Smithsonian, University of Tennessee and the Mississippi Entomological Museum, so they may be preserved and curated.

For example under Holotype:

 

73.1. Holotypes

A holotype is the single specimen upon which a new nominal species-group taxon is based in the original publication (for specimens eligible to be holotypes in colonial animals and protistans, see Articles 72.5.2, 72.5.4 and 73.3).

73.1.1. If an author when establishing a new nominal species-group taxon states in the original publication that one specimen, and only one, is the holotype, or "the type", or uses some equivalent expression, that specimen is the holotype fixed by original designation.

73.1.2. If the nominal species-group taxon is based on a single specimen, either so stated or implied in the original publication, that specimen is the holotype fixed by monotypy (see Recommendation 73F). If the taxon was established before 2000 evidence derived from outside the work itself may be taken into account [Art. 72.4.1.1] to help identify the specimen.

73.1.3. The holotype of a new nominal species-group taxon can only be fixed in the original publication and by the original author (for consequences following a misuse of the term "holotype" see Article 74.6).

73.1.4. Designation of an illustration of a single specimen as a holotype is to be treated as designation of the specimen illustrated; the fact that the specimen no longer exists or cannot be traced does not of itself invalidate the designation.

73.1.5. If a subsequent author finds that a holotype which consists of a set of components (e.g. disarticulated body parts) is not derived from an individual animal, the extraneous components may, by appropriate citation, be excluded from the holotype (material may be excluded from a hapantotype if it is found to contain components representing more than one taxon [Art. 73.3.2]).

Recommendation 73A. Designation of holotype. An author who establishes a new nominal species-group taxon should designate its holotype in a way that will facilitate its subsequent recognition.

Recommendation 73B. Preference for specimens studied by author. An author should designate as holotype a specimen actually studied by him or her, not a specimen known to the author only from descriptions or illustrations in the literature.

Recommendation 73C. Data on the holotype. An author who establishes a new nominal species-group taxon should publish at least the following data concerning the holotype, if they are relevant and known to the author:

[ClaytonBaby]

Every species of plant or animal has or should have its own holotype or some sort of type material for reference. It has gotten muddier now that photographs, at least in some cases are allowed to be considered type material and new species can be described based on a picture. Something I strongly disagree with I don't care how unique the insect/animal is. With the ability today to manipulate images this leaves things wide open for taxonomic vandals.

https://phys.org/new...escription.html

WOW… ya… with the things we can do just on a IPhone there is literally no reason to be lazy and allow purely non physical evidence as acceptable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClaytonBaby]

Upshot, to all of this is that delimiting species, especially in often morphological ambiguous complexes, takes time and experience working with real specimens, familiarity with the unique morphological characters that are key to that genus along with updated and accurate geographical distribution, possible hybridization zones that can throw off usage of accepted morphological characters, proper equipment and patience.

This is the main reason I have the problems I have with some of the folks that put names on ants over at Inaturalist. We get far too many ant images being identified down to subspecies level based on images that are barely good enough to get an accurate species or even genus level Id. Don't get me wrong the place is amazing and some of the folks making Ids are fantastic but there are also a large number of bandwagoners that just jump on an incorrect Id and propel it onward. The matter is simple, you gotta have specimens in hand and accurately Identified reference material to compare with to get an accurate Id. You can't just base it things like color, range or a hunch. That is all valuable data true but you need the physical, in your hand specimens.

This is why we have holotypes: a specimen that represents the physical representative of the species. All morphological characteristics of a species must confirm to the holotype, which should have been thoroughly examined to lay out the delimiting characters.

is there a singular holotype for every region in place or is does each region have its own holotype? Is there a generally accepted holotype for each species already or is this something I would collect myself and then develop my own identification chart with based off the area? Sorry if any of these questions don’t make sense, I have never heard of a holotype and I’m super curious!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A holotype is the single type specimen when a new species is described. One cannot just submit it. Currently one would submit a species description though a peer reviewed journal with sufficient evidence to warrant a new species population designation.

This is a brief overview:
just-our-types-a-short-guide-to-type-specimens

The INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE is where you will look to find agreed upon International standardized rules in assigning species/genus/family etc designations to zoological organisms ( it can be daunting). It is where I have had to go to confirm naming the species I am on my 3rd revision in describing.
As for type:

72.10. Value of name-bearing types
Holotypes, syntypes, lectotypes and neotypes are the bearers of the scientific names of all nominal species-group taxa (and indirectly of all animal taxa). They are the international standards of reference that provide objectivity in zoological nomenclature and must be cared for as such (see Recommendations 72D to 72F). They are to be held in trust for science by the persons responsible for their safe keeping.

This is why I will be submitting a single holotype to Harvard along with ants from the same colony as paratypes, I will also submit paratypes to the Smithsonian, University of Tennessee and the Mississippi Entomological Museum, so they may be preserved and curated.
For example under Holotype:

73.1. Holotypes
A holotype is the single specimen upon which a new nominal species-group taxon is based in the original publication (for specimens eligible to be holotypes in colonial animals and protistans, see Articles 72.5.2, 72.5.4 and 73.3).
73.1.1. If an author when establishing a new nominal species-group taxon states in the original publication that one specimen, and only one, is the holotype, or "the type", or uses some equivalent expression, that specimen is the holotype fixed by original designation.
73.1.2. If the nominal species-group taxon is based on a single specimen, either so stated or implied in the original publication, that specimen is the holotype fixed by monotypy (see Recommendation 73F). If the taxon was established before 2000 evidence derived from outside the work itself may be taken into account [Art. 72.4.1.1] to help identify the specimen.
73.1.3. The holotype of a new nominal species-group taxon can only be fixed in the original publication and by the original author (for consequences following a misuse of the term "holotype" see Article 74.6).
73.1.4. Designation of an illustration of a single specimen as a holotype is to be treated as designation of the specimen illustrated; the fact that the specimen no longer exists or cannot be traced does not of itself invalidate the designation.
73.1.5. If a subsequent author finds that a holotype which consists of a set of components (e.g. disarticulated body parts) is not derived from an individual animal, the extraneous components may, by appropriate citation, be excluded from the holotype (material may be excluded from a hapantotype if it is found to contain components representing more than one taxon [Art. 73.3.2]).
Recommendation 73A. Designation of holotype. An author who establishes a new nominal species-group taxon should designate its holotype in a way that will facilitate its subsequent recognition.
Recommendation 73B. Preference for specimens studied by author. An author should designate as holotype a specimen actually studied by him or her, not a specimen known to the author only from descriptions or illustrations in the literature.
Recommendation 73C. Data on the holotype. An author who establishes a new nominal species-group taxon should publish at least the following data concerning the holotype, if they are relevant and known to the author:

Gotta be the most interesting thing I’ve read in awhile! I hope your personal journey is going well, 3rd revision sounds like progress man congrats!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClaytonBaby]

Question, would a ant species have a queen holotype, worker holotype, and male allotype?
Or is the queen the holotype, the worker the paratype, and male the allotype.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PurdueEntomology]

Question, would a ant species have a queen holotype, worker holotype, and male allotype?
Or is the queen the holotype, the worker the paratype, and male the allotype.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If only a reproductive was known of the species being delimited, that is possible. One would though have to have other reproductives of known species to weigh out the differences to ascribe a novel species designation.  The individual taxon that is used for the official species designation, that is the holotype irrespective if it is a male or female (reproductive or not).  As you may know males of the Eciton and other Dorylinae  ants were thought to be different species from the actual Eciton and other Doyline ants.  They had their own species description.  To my knowledge most ant species have holotypes etc that are workers, as they are generally what are collected.  I believe there are some species only known from males such as the Yavnella of the Leptanillinae, these being most like strictly subterranean as workers and queens and hence not yet described. Allotypes are important to have so as to better set morphology based species limits. Martialis heureka was first described from a single specimen in 2008 from Brazil.  Notice the dissimilarity between the worker (holotype) and the male. 

 

 

[ClaytonBaby]

Question, would a ant species have a queen holotype, worker holotype, and male allotype?
Or is the queen the holotype, the worker the paratype, and male the allotype.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If only a reproductive was known of the species being delimited, that is possible. One would though have to have other reproductives of known species to weigh out the differences to ascribe a novel species designation. The individual taxon that is used for the official species designation, that is the holotype irrespective if it is a male or female (reproductive or not). As you may know males of the Eciton and other Dorylinae ants were thought to be different species from the actual Eciton and other Doyline ants. They had their own species description. To my knowledge most ant species have holotypes etc that are workers, as they are generally what are collected. I believe there are some species only known from males such as the Yavnella of the Leptanillinae, these being most like strictly subterranean as workers and queens and hence not yet described. Allotypes are important to have so as to better set morphology based species limits. Martialis heureka was first described from a single specimen in 2008 from Brazil. Notice the dissimilarity between the worker (holotype) and the male.

okay so when you said, “One would though have to have other reproductives of known species to weigh out the differences to ascribe a novel species designation. The individual taxon that is used for the official species designation, that is the holotype irrespective if it is a male or female (reproductive or not).”, were you saying that to write out a complete species designation you will indeed need a example of each caste in the species,(Worker, Queen, Male, Egg, etc.) but the holotype will be whatever specimen that is submitted to be the holotype and does not need to specifically be a worker or reproductive?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClaytonBaby]

Or where you saying I would need a initial specimen of a known Pogonomyrmex sp. to cross reference with the same caste of the species being described, and submitting any caste for the holotype in the species is acceptable? Ex. I could submit a holotype that is a male of a specific new Pogonomyrmex sp. as long as when describing it, its differences are cross referenced with a known Pogonomyrmex sp.?

[PurdueEntomology]

Or where you saying I would need a initial specimen of a known Pogonomyrmex sp. to cross reference with the same caste of the species being described, and submitting any caste for the holotype in the species is acceptable? Ex. I could submit a holotype that is a male of a specific new Pogonomyrmex sp. as long as when describing it, its differences are cross referenced with a known Pogonomyrmex sp.?

One only needs a single specimen to designate a novel species such as M.heureka above.  Since there can be diverse morphology between queens and workers (both female we won't discuss males) if let's say one only had a single queen specimen one felt was a novel species candidate.  It would be easy to most likely get it down to subfamily then genus.  To species level one would need, ideally, confirmed specimens of queens or very throughly written detailed descriptions of queens in that genus to begin comparing and "cross referencing".

 

The M heureka example is rather extreme since the initial worker found was so unlike any previously described ant from that region that "red flags" were raised. If one had a single worker of a putative Pognomyrmex "X" ant then designating it a novel species would be much more demanding  and reviewers and experts in that genus would expect very definitive evidence to accept the claim of "species novum" was worthy.  This is what I had to demonstrate when I had found what I was certain was a novel species of Tapinoma from Tennessee and it took time to lay out various forms of evidence:  (a) nuclear DNA, (b.)  mitochondrial DNA, (c.) unique and distinct morphology, (d) behavior and (e) allochrony and (f) oligogyny colony structure.  Thus 7 lines of evidence. Had I found this ant in a rain forest less demanding evidence may have been accepted, but since I found a putative new species in an area where new ants that are not cryptic are rarely or ever  found anymore (unless it is a genus level reassessment which these days is almost always based a suit of nuclear genes) and in a genus that has only a limited number of endemic species the bar of "burden of proof"was substantially raised. 

Edited by PurdueEntomology, September 17 2023 - 11:58 PM.

[ClaytonBaby]

Or where you saying I would need a initial specimen of a known Pogonomyrmex sp. to cross reference with the same caste of the species being described, and submitting any caste for the holotype in the species is acceptable? Ex. I could submit a holotype that is a male of a specific new Pogonomyrmex sp. as long as when describing it, its differences are cross referenced with a known Pogonomyrmex sp.?

One only needs a single specimen to designate a novel species such as M.heureka above. Since there can be diverse morphology between queens and workers (both female we won't discuss males) if let's say one only had a single queen specimen one felt was a novel species candidate. It would be easy to most likely get it down to subfamily then genus. To species level one would need, ideally, confirmed specimens of queens or very throughly written detailed descriptions of queens in that genus to begin comparing and "cross referencing".

The M heureka example is rather extreme since the initial worker found was so unlike any previously described ant from that region that "red flags" were raised. If one had a single worker of a putative Pognomyrmex "X" ant then designating it a novel species would be much more demanding and reviewers and experts in that genus would expect very definitive evidence to accept the claim of "species novum" was worthy. This is what I had to demonstrate when I had found what I was certain was a novel species of Tapinoma from Tennessee and it took time to lay out various forms of evidence: (a) nuclear DNA, (b.) mitochondrial DNA, (c.) unique and distinct morphology, (d) behavior and (e) allochrony and (f) oligogyny colony structure. Thus 7 lines of evidence. Had I found this ant in an Ecuadorian rain forest less demanding evidence may have been accepted, but since I found a putative new species in an area where new ants that are not cryptic are rarely or ever found anymore (unless it is a genus level reassessment which these days is almost always based a suit of nuclear genes) and in a genus that has only a limited number of endemic species the bar of burden of proof was substantially raised.

Man that’s ridiculously interesting!! So is the level of evidence decided by peers after the study is proposed or does the person doing the study decide the necessary level of evidence when the study starts and at the end they see if more is asked for? So so sorry to pick your brain so much but this is all so cool to me! I always wondered what the process for naming a species was and I tip my hat to you and everyone else that is doing/has done it!! I hope to find myself in a situation where I can name my own species one day. It’s always been a dream of mine to head to the Amazon and find a couple at the least! lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk