Abstract
A heated debate on whether a new species should be described without a physical specimen, i.e., by designating a photographed specimen to serve as a holotype, has been ongoing for a long time. Herewith, without nomenclatural actions, a new species of the Batrachidein pygmy grasshoppers belonging to the genus Scaria Bolívar, 1887 is identified from the Andean rainforest in Peru. This species is clearly different from all its congeners by morphology and coloration. Two individuals of this peculiar species are known only from the photographs found on iNaturalist. The species has not been observed since 2008 when the photographs were taken. A short historical overview of the topic is given, illustrating the pros and cons of photograph-based species description. The concepts of names, holotypes, research effort, and conservation are discussed and related to the problem at hand. The current state of the taxonomic community’s beliefs regarding this issue is reflected by the authors’ three unsuccessful attempts to name this new species.
Highlights
A heated debate on whether a new species should be described without a physical specimen, i.e., by designating a photographed specimen to serve as a holotype, has been ongoing for a long time
Without nomenclatural actions, a new species of the Batrachidein pygmy grasshoppers belonging to the genus Scaria Bolívar, 1887 is identified from the Andean rainforest in Peru
We describe an unnamed species of a pygmy grasshopper, belonging to the tribe Batrachideini and genus Scaria Bolívar, 1887 based on two photographs posted on the iNaturalist website by one of the authors (Roberto Sindaco; https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/9968031) and three previously unpublished photographs taken by Roberto Sindaco at the same time as the original two
Summary
Describing species from photographs or illustrations is not a common practice, but it has been done a number of times (Fricke and Kacher 1982, Welch et al 1986, Jonkers and Roersma 1990, Wallach and Jones 1992, Jones et al 2005, Sinha et al 2005, Robb et al 2013, Cheng et al 2015, Marshall and Evenhuis 2015, Ingrisch et al 2016, Lonsdale and Marshall 2016, Nardelli 2016). Most of the names based on photographs are valid, but exceptions do exist (for an extensive historical overview of this practice, see Krell and Marshall (2017)). Some of these publications have sparked a debate about the validity of describing species in this way. Löbl et al (2016) consider such a practice dangerous, as it promotes quick capturing of visual data instead of careful observation They fear that works describing taxa based on an incomplete set of characters (i.e., photographs) may encourage non-experts to try to publish their works, harming the whole field of taxonomy as a result.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
