生物多样性 ›› 2017, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (11): 1239-1245.doi: 10.17520/biods.2017253

• 生物编目 • 上一篇    下一篇

实物凭证标本作为命名动物新种必要性条件的挑战:《国际动物命名法规》、物种保护与数码时代

陈军*()   

  1. 中国科学院动物研究所动物进化与系统学院重点实验室, 北京 100101
  • 收稿日期:2017-09-17 接受日期:2017-11-15 出版日期:2017-11-20
  • 通讯作者: 陈军 E-mail:chenj@ioz.ac.cn
  • 基金项目:
    国家自然科学基金(31372155)、科技部科技基础性工作专项(2014FY210200)、科技部国家国际科技合作专项(2015DFR30790)和国家科技基础条件平台工作重点项目(2005DKA21402)

Challenges regarding the necessity of voucher specimens for naming a new animal species: the Code, species conservation and the digital age

Jun Chen*()   

  1. Key Laboratory of Zoological Systematics and Evolution, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101
  • Received:2017-09-17 Accepted:2017-11-15 Online:2017-11-20
  • Contact: Chen Jun E-mail:chenj@ioz.ac.cn

随着濒危物种保护意识的不断提升和数字化技术的不断进步, 加之对《国际动物命名法规》(第4版)相关条款的不同理解, 近年来出现了不以保藏的死的动物个体实物标本为模式标本命名脊椎动物新种的案例, 引起了能否不依据实物凭证标本命名动物新种的讨论。2015年Marshall和Evenhuis依据15张数码照片发表了昆虫一新种, 立即引发了对这一论题的激烈争论。反对必须以实物标本作为模式标本者认为, 《国际动物命名法规》(第4版)第73.1.4条款允许以图为正模来命名动物, 越来越多的“数码采集者”为依据图片发表新种提供了更大的可能, 而且这样做可以避免因采集标本对濒危物种造成威胁; 坚持必须以实物标本作为模式标本者则认为, 《国际动物命名法规》(第4版)十分强调以实物标本作为载名模式, 以图或其他非死的动物个体实物标本为依据发表新种可能因无法获得更加详细、准确、全面的形态特征信息而造成学术上的缺憾或混乱, 也存在造假的可能性, 并且认为采集标本并不是造成物种濒危或灭绝的原因。本文对上述观点进行了总结, 认为鉴于《国际动物命名法规》(第4版)中存在模糊甚至相互矛盾的一些内容, 非常有必要进行一次全面的修订。在修订时, 应该考虑濒危物种保护、新技术应用等诸多需求。鼓励依据实物标本命名动物新种, 在合理、适度、有序的原则下不断收集动物标本。

关键词: 实物凭证标本, 国际动物命名法规, 物种保护, 数码时代

With increased awareness of endangered species conservation, the development of digital technology, and different interpretations of some articles in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Fourth edition), in recent years some new vertebrate species have been named and published without preserved dead bodies as type specimens. This has triggered discussions on the necessity of voucher specimens for naming a new animal species. In 2015, after Marshall & Evenhuis described a new insect species on the basis of 15 photographs only, a hot debate on this topic resulted. Supporters who advocate for naming new species without voucher specimens argue that, to name a new species without a voucher specimen is Code-compliant according to the Article 73.1.4. In addition, more and more skilled “digital collectors” would increase the likelihood of this kind of practice, and thus the threat to endangered species from collecting specimens could be reduced. Scholars on the other side of the debate argue that, in the Code, it is stressed that the specimen is the name-bearing type and not the illustration or description itself, and that describing new species based only on a picture and other non-physical specimens would result in errors in follow-up studies due to the lack of more detailed, accurate, and comprehensive morphological characteristics, along with possibilities of falsification. As well, collecting specimens is not the reason that species are endangered or extinct. In this article, the author summarizes the viewpoints of both sides of the debate. In consideration of some articles with ambiguous and even contradictory meanings, the author suggests that the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Fourth edition) be revised in response to the needs of endangered species conservation and new technological applications. Naming new species with voucher specimens should be encouraged, as well as collecting specimens using reasonable, moderate, and orderly principles.

Key words: voucher specimen, International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, species conservation, digital age

[1] Amorim DS, Santos CMD, Krell FT, with other 47 co-authors (2016) Timeless standards for species delimitation. Zootaxa, 4137, 121-128.
[2] Ceríaco LMP, Gutiérrez EE, Dubois A, supported by 490 signatories (2016) Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences. Zootaxa, 4196, 435-445.
[3] Cianferoni F, Bartolozzi L (2016) Warning: potential problems for taxonomy on the horizon? Zootaxa, 4139, 128-130.
[4] Davenport TRB, Stanley WT, Sargis EJ, De Luca DW, Mpunga NE, Machaga SJ, Olson LE (2006) A new genus of African monkey, Rungwecebus: morphology, ecology, and molecular phylogenetics. Science, 312, 1378-1381.
[5] Donegon TM (2008) New species and subspecies descriptions do not and should not always require a dead type specimen. Zootaxa, 1761, 37-48.
[6] Dubois A (2017) The need for reference specimens in zoological taxonomy and nomenclature. Bionomina, 12, 4-38.
[7] 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.
[8] Erdmann MV, Caldwell RL, Moosa MK (1998) Indonesian ‘king of the sea’ discovered. Nature, 395, 335.
[9] Garraffoni ARS, Freitas AVL (2017) Photos belong in the taxonomic Code. Science, 355, 805.
[10] Gentile G, Snell H (2009) Conolophus marthae sp. nov. (Squamata, Iguanidae), a new species of land iguana from the Galápagos Archipelago. Zootaxa, 2201, 1-10.
[11] Godfray HCJ (2002) Challenges for taxonomy. Nature, 417, 17-19.
[12] Güntsch A, Hyam R, Hagedorn G, Chagnoux S, Röpert D, Casino A, Droege G, Glöckler F, Gödderz K, Groom Q, Hoffmann J, Holleman A, Kempa M, Koivula H, Marhold K, Nicolson N, Smith VS, Triebel D (2017) Actionable, long-term stable and semantic web compatible identifiers for access to biological collection objects. Database, Vol. 2017: article ID bax003; doi:10.1093/database/bax003.
[13] Gutiérrez EE, Pine RH (2017) Specimen collection crucial to taxonomy. Science, 355, 1275.
[14] International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 4th edn. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London.1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 4th edn. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London. .
[15] International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (translated by Bu WJ, Zheng LY) (2007) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 4th edn. Adopted by the International Union of Biological Sciences. Science Press, Beijing. (in Chinese).
[卜文俊, 郑乐怡 (译) (2007) 国际动物命名法规(第四版)/国际生物科学协会通过. 科学出版社, 北京.]
[16] Jones T, Ehardt CL, Butynski TM, Davenport TRB, Mpunga NE, Machaga SJ, De Luca DW (2005) The highland mangabey Lophocebus kipunji: a new species of African monkey. Science, 308, 1161-1164.
[17] Kirwan GM, Schweizer M, Copete JL (2015) Multiple lines of evidence confirm that Hume’s Owl Strix butleri (A. O. Hume, 1878) is two species, with description of an unnamed species (Aves: Non-Passeriformes: Strigidae). Zootaxa, 3904, 28-50.
[18] Landry SO (2005) What constitutes a proper description? Science, 309, 2164.
[19] Li C, Zhao C, Fan PF (2015) White-cheeked macaque (Macaca leucogenys): a new macaque species from Medog, southeastern Tibet. American Journal of Primatology, 77, 753-766.
[20] Löbl I, Cibois A, Landry B (2016) Describing new species in the absence of sampled specimens: a taxonomist’s own-goal. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 73, 83-86.
[21] Marshall SA, Evenhuis NL (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.
[22] Marshall SA, Evenhuis NL (2016) Proxy types, taxonomic discretion, and taxonomic progress: a response to Löbl et al. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 73, 87-92.
[23] McCabe H, Wright J (2000) Tangled tale of a lost, stolen and disputed coelacanth. Nature, 406, 114.
[24] Mendes Pontes AR, Malta A, Asfora PH (2006) A new species of capuchin monkey, genus Cebus Erxleben (Cebidae, Primates): found at the very brink of extinction in the Pernambuco Endemism Centre. Zootaxa, 1200, 1-12.
[25] Minteer BA, Collins JP, Love KE, Puschendorf R (2014) Avoiding (re)extinction. Science, 344, 260-261.
[26] Pape T, supported by 34 signatories (2016) Species can be named from photos. Nature, 537, 307.
[27] Polaszek A, Grubb P, Groves C, Ehardt CL, Butynski TM (2005) What constitutes a proper description? Response. Science, 309, 2164-2166.
[28] Robb MS, Sangster G, Aliabadian M, van den Berg AB, Constantine M, Irestedt M, Khani A, Musavi SB, Nunes JMG, Willson MA, Walsh AJ (2016) The rediscovery of Strix butleri (Hume, 1878) in Oman and Iran, with molecular resolution of the identity of Strix omanensis Robb, van den Berg and Constantine, 2013. Avian Research, 7, doi: 10.1186/s40657-016-0043-4.
[29] Robb MS, van den Berg AB, Constantine M (2013) A new species of Strix owl from Oman. Dutch Birding, 35, 275-310.
[30] Rocha LA, Aleixo A, Allen G, with other 122 co-authors (2014) Specimen collection: an essential tool. Science, 344, 814-815.
[31] Santos CMD, Amorim DS, Klassa B, Fachin DA, Nihei SS, de Carvalho CJB, Falaschi RL, Mello-Patiu CA, Couri MS, Oliveira SS, Silva VC, Ribeiro GC, Capellari RS, Lamas CJE (2016) On typeless species and the perils of fast taxonomy. Systematic Entomology, 41, 511-515.
[32] Shatalkin AI, Galinskaya TV (2017) A commentary on the practice of using the so-called typeless species. ZooKeys, 693, 129-139.
[33] Skejo J, Caballero JHS (2016) A hidden pygmy devil from the Philippines: Arulenus miae sp. nov. — a new species serendipitously discovered in an amateur Facebook post (Tetrigidae: Discotettiginae). Zootaxa, 4067, 383-393.
[34] Smith EFG, Arctander P, Fjeldså J, Amir OG (1991) A new species of shrike (Laniidae: Laniarius) from Somalia, verified by DNA sequence data from the only known individual. Ibis, 133, 227-235.
[35] Timm RM, Ramey RR II, The Nomenclature Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists(2005) What constitutes a proper description? Science, 309, 2163-2164.
[36] Wakeham-Dawson A, Morris S, Tubbs P (2002) Type specimens: dead or alive? Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 59, 282-284.
[1] 蒋志刚. 中国重点保护物种名录、标准与管理[J]. 生物多样性, 2019, 27(6): 698-703.
[2] 李飞, 郑玺, 张华荣, 杨剑焕, 陈辈乐. 广东省珠海市近海诸岛水獭现状与保护建议[J]. 生物多样性, 2017, 25(8): 840-846.
[3] 褚建民, 李毅夫, 张雷, 李斌, 高明远, 唐晓倩, 倪建伟, 许新桥. 濒危物种长柄扁桃的潜在分布与保护策略[J]. 生物多样性, 2017, 25(8): 799-806.
[4] 杨文忠, 向振勇, 张珊珊, 康洪梅, 史富强. 极小种群野生植物的概念及其对我国野生植物保护的影响[J]. 生物多样性, 2015, 23(3): 419-425.
[5] 杨洪晓, 褚建民, 张金屯. 山东半岛滨海沙滩前缘的野生植物[J]. 植物学报, 2011, 46(1): 50-58.
[6] 张大勇, 雷光春, ILKKA HANKI. 集合种群动态:理论与应用[J]. 生物多样性, 1999, 07(2): 81-90.
[7] 贺善安, 郝日明. 中国鹅掌揪自然种群动态及其致危生境的研究[J]. 植物生态学报, 1999, 23(1): 87-95.
[8] 贺金生, 林洁, 陈伟烈. 我国珍稀特有植物珙桐的现状及其保护[J]. 生物多样性, 1995, 03(4): 213-221.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed