On the use of photography in science and taxonomy: how images can provide a basis for their own authentication

Abstract

Photography has, since its inception, significantly contributed as a tool to many areas of scientific research and consequently, has been able to achieve a high level of prestige in the scientific field. In recent years, there has been an increasing debate within the scientific community regarding the need for the deposition of type specimens when describing new species. Recently, Marshall & Evenhuis (2015) described a new species of Diptera, based exclusively on a few photographs. Even if one withholds judgement about whether the photographs used present sufficient characteristics for the description and identification of this new species, data missing from the holotype photograph could be of great importance for other analyses and future comparisons. The authors have omitted the digital photographic format used for the photographs in their work, and at no point has a deposition of the RAW type (a digital format sometimes called digital negatives, this file preserves most of the information from the captured picture) for verification of its authenticity been mentioned. The absence of this file for verification of the authenticity of the photograph makes its scientific credibility questionable and untrustworthy. We consider this taxonomical practice based exclusively on the use of photographs to be simplistic and harmful. Although the Code does not mention Rules about the use of photography formats we strongly suggest that, for the elaboration of academic articles, not only in taxonomic ones, using characteristics based on digital photography, the authors should be willing to make the RAW file of the photograph available for comparison in order to avoid doubts regarding the authenticity of the photograph presented.