Abstract
We discuss the philosophical tenets underpinning the current debate among taxonomists as to the need for a physical holotype in support of new species, or whether, as some scientists argue, photographs should be considered equally acceptable. At present, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature does not stipulate that the deposition of a physical specimen is required, but many taxonomists have recently called on the Commissioners of the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature to modify the text of the Code on these issues in its forthcoming, fifth edition. We discuss considerations that motivate both sides in this argument, all of which pertain to philosophical and historical issues: (1) misconceptions about science; (2) a fear of the loss of control over zoological nomenclature; and (3) the difficulty inherent in making the system developed by Linnaeus for a natural world originally perceived as static, compatible with the constantly shifting one outlined by Darwin and Wallace. In conclusion we argue that the best means to understand the question is rooted in a broader comprehension of the history of taxonomy and the kind of science it represents.
References
Anonymous [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature] (1999) International code of zoological nomenclature. Fourth edition. London (International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature): i–xxix + 1–306.
Amorim, D. S, Santos, C. M. D., Krell, F.-T., Dubois, A., Nihei, S. S., Oliveira, O. M. P., Pont, A., Song, H., Verdade, V. K., Fachin, D. A., Klassa, B., Lamas, C. J. E., Oliveira, S. S., Carvalho, C. J. B. De, Mello-Patiu, C. A., Hajdu, E., Couri, M. S., Silva, V. C., Capellari, R. S., Falaschi, R. L., Feitosa, R. M., Prendini, L., Pombal, J. P. J., Fernández, F., Rocha, R. M., Lattke, J. E., Caramaschi, U., Duarte, M., Marques, A. C., Reis, R. E., Kurina, O., Takiya, D. M., Tavares, M., Fernandes, D. S., Franco, F. L., Cuezzo, F., Paulson, D., Guénard, B., Schlick-Steiner, B. C., Arthofer, W., Steiner, F. M., Fisher, B. L., Johnson, R. A., Delsinne, T. D., Donoso, D. A., Mulieri, P. R., Patitucci, L. D., Carpenter, J. M., Herman, L. & Grimaldi, D. (2016) Timeless standards for species delimitation. Zootaxa, 4137 (1): 121–128. <https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4137.1.9>.
Ayer, A. J. (1946). Language, truth and logic. Second edition. London (Gollancz): 1–160.
Ceríaco, L. M. P., Gutiérrez, E. E., Dubois, A. et al. [490 additional signatories] (2016) Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences. Zootaxa, 4196 (3): 435–445. <https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4196.3.9>.
Cianferoni, F. & Bartolozzi, L. (2016) Warning: potential problems for taxonomy on the horizon? Zootaxa, 4139 (1): 128–130. <http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4139.1.8>.
Collar, N. J. (1999) New species, high standards and the case of Laniarius liberatus. Ibis, 141: 358–367. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1999.tb04406.x>.
Cotterill, F. P. D. & Dangerfield. J. M. (1997) The state of biological knowledge. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 12: 206. <https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(97)84103-1>.
Cotterill, F. P. D., Taylor, P. J., Gippoliti, S., Bishop, J. M. & Groves, C. P. (2014) Why one century of phenetics is enough: response to ‘Are there really twice as many bovid species as we thought?’ Systematic Biology, 63: 819–832. <https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syu003>.
Donegan, T. M. (2008) New species and subspecies descriptions do not and should not always require a dead type specimen. Zootaxa, 1761: 37–48.
Donegan, T. M. (2009) Type specimens, samples of live individuals and the Galapagos Pink Land Iguana. Zootaxa, 2021: 12–20.
Dubois, A. (2007) Phylogeny, taxonomy and nomenclature: the problem of taxonomic categories and of nomenclatural ranks. Zootaxa, 1519: 27–68.
Dubois, A. (2009) Endangered species and endangered knowledge. Zootaxa, 2201: 26–29.
Dubois, A. & Nemésio, A. (2007) Does nomenclatural availability of nomina of new species or subspecies require the deposition of vouchers in collections? Zootaxa, 1409: 1–22.
Fogelin, R. (2003) Walking the tightrope of reason. Oxford (Oxford University Press): i–xii + 1–203.
Gippoliti, S. & Groves, C. P. (2012) ‘Taxonomic inflation’ in the historical context of mammalogy and conservation. Hystrix, 23: 6–9.
Groves, C. (2013) The nature of species: a rejoinder to Zachos et al. Mammal Biology, 78: 7–9. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2012.09.009>.
Groves, C. & Grubb, P. (2011) Ungulate taxonomy. Baltimore (The Johns Hopkins University Press): i–ix + 1–310.
Heller, R., Frandsen, P., Lorenzen, E. D. & Siegismund, H. R. (2013) Are there really twice as many bovid species as we thought? Systematic Biology, 62: 490–493. <https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syt004>.
Heller, R., Frandsen, P., Lorenzen, E. D. & Siegismund, H. R. (2014) Is diagnosability an indicator of speciation? Response to ‘Why one century of phenetics is enough’. Systematic Biology, 63: 833–837. <https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syu034>.
Kaiser, H., Crother, B. I., Kelly, C. M. R., Luiselli, L., O’Shea, M., Ota, H., Passos, P., Schleip, W. E. & Wuster, W. (2013) Best practices: in the 21st century, taxonomic decisions in herpetology are acceptable only when supported by a body of evidence and published via peer-review. Herpetological Review, 44, 8–23.
Krell, F. T. (2016) Preserve specimens for reproducibility. Nature, 538: 168. <https://doi.org/10.1038/539168b>.
Marshall, S. A. & Evenhuis, N. L. (2015) New species without dead bodies: a case for photo-based descriptions, illustrated by a striking new species of Marleyimyia Hesse (Diptera, Bombyliidae) from South Africa. ZooKeys, 525: 117–127. <http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.525.6143>.
Minteer, B. A., Collins, J. P. & Puschendorf, R. (2014) Avoiding (re)extinction. Science, 344: 260–261. <https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1250953>.
Nemésio, A. (2009) Nomenclatural availability of nomina of new species should always require the deposition of preserved specimens in collections: a rebuttal to Donegan (2008). Zootaxa, 2045: 1–16.
Pape, T. (2016) Taxonomy: species can be named from photos. Nature, 537: 307. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/537307bpp>.
Pillon, Y. & Chase, M. W. (2007) Taxonomic exaggeration and its effects on orchid conservation. Conservation Biology, 21: 263–265. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00573.x>.
Putnam, H. (1989) Objectivity and the science/ethics distinction. WIDER Working Paper 70. Helsinki (World Institute for Development Economics Research): 1–28.
Santos, C. M. D., Amorim, D. S., Klassa, B., Fachin, D. A., Nihei, S. S., De Carvalho, C. J. B., Falaschi, R. L., Mello-Patiu, C. A., Couri, M. S., Oliveira, S. S., Silva, V. C., Ribeiro, G. C., Capellari, R. S. & Lamas, C. J. E. (2016) On typeless species and the perils of fast taxonomy. Systematic Entomology, 41: 511–515. <https://doi.org/10.1111/syen.12180>.
Thorpe, S. E. (2017) Is photography-based taxonomy really inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences? A reply to Ceríaco et al. (2016). Zootaxa, 4226 (3): 449–450. <https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4226.3.9>.
Wakeham-Dawson, A., Morris, S., Tubbs, P., Dalebout, M. L. & Baker, C. S. (2002) Type specimens: dead or alive? Bulletin of zoological Nomenclature, 59 (4): 282–286.
Zachos, F. E. (2014) Commentary on taxonomic inflation, species delimitation and classification in Ruminantia. Zitteliana, 32: 213–216.