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 发布日期:2017-11-20
  • 通讯作者: 陈军
  • 基金资助:
    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 Published:2017-11-20
  • Contact: Chen Jun

摘要:

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

Abstract:

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