Attempt to name a species with no specimen

trehopr1
We published in 2 parts (1997 and 2002), a 30 consecutive year study of the Sphingidae of Louisiana, which also resulted in the discovery of two new sphingid species, Lapara phaeobrachycerous Brou, and a second Lapara species yet to be described, both occurring here at our home location. This monumental investigation involved the Sphingidae of Louisiana, covered the years (1970-1999) in which we reported capturing 83,889 adult wild Sphingidae specimens representing 46 species within the state of Louisiana.

When I was working on that manuscript, I obtained every major publication on hawkmnoths going back to the Civil War era.  I spent decades of time, and bags of dimes and quarters making xerox copies at numerous university libraries of every publication I could find on Sphingidae.  For decades I looked for a copy of 'Rothschild, W. & K. Jordan 1903 . A revision of the lepidopterous family Sphingidae. Novit. Zoo!., ix suppl. cxxxv + 972 pp.' And one copy of this huge (4 1/2" thick, 1116+ pages) book eventually appeared for sale and I scooped that prize up instantly. So I have a rather extensive reference library (publications and reprints) on hawkmoths of the world.  I mention this because what I discovered was that some statements found in the 1800s publications were repeatedly parroted by each subsequent author for more than a century, over and over and over to present day, restating what the first author published. Not one of these authors provided proofs of their declarations. Some of the statements even in the first published MONA fascicle on NA Sphingidae (1970), are absurd and simply unsubstantiated drivel and anecdotal conjecture, stated as fact, from statements appearing exactly as made in the 1800s.

The present-day taxonomical situation is less about lack of earlier technology, and more about the unfounded misguided assumptions and belief that having a bunch of acronyms behind ones names has some magical connotation as being an 'EXPERT'.  What is true about any publication is that if one actually looks closely at the statements within, one realizes that these technical documents are mostly unsubstantiated opinions, and as I often remark 'BULL###'.  Anyone reading these can discover these minor and major foibles; all one has to do is investigate for yourself. Never accept any opinion or publication as undisputed fact, even when you are supplied with glowing reviews from the 'good old boy network of the authors friends', or even a letter of authenticity signed by GOD.

What occurs with many large works on entomological subjects is that authors are often not experts on the subjects of their writings at all, but are experts at plagiarism, and since the advent of the internet, this type of problem has skyrocketed, especially with university professors and PhDs. Start collecting a reference library, actually read what all these past and present day authors say, and you too will realize the real state of affairs of our scientific literature. The reason this 'FAKE NEWS" proliferates with learned professionals is that university and college employees are required (forced) to publish (something or anything) in order to keep their jobs. And indeed they do !!

As one would surmise, graduate students who publish do so in order to graduate.  They often have no actual personal meaningful experiences or accomplishments to base their publications on, so these publications will have the greatest amount of misinformation, plagiarism and nonsense. But, they often wind up being part of the official record. Some graduate thesis unfortunately go on to publication in hardbound status. I have several of these in paperback and hardback, and they live up to my expectations of 'grand foolishness'.

Lets not assume that DNA is the 'be all-end all' to taxonomical quandaries. It is not, but the new crop of researchers (newbies) out there mistakenly believe it is. The fact is, that it is just another tool in the lab. When genitalic dissections came into favor in the late 1800, they too were thought to be the answer to all taxonomical questions, and today we all realize they too are just one of a number of useful tools, but not always a useful and convincing one.

Call me skeptical, I consider that an honor.  Once, I was dubbed 'an old curmudgeon' by my entomological peers after I published a book review concerning a genus of moths.

No matter opinions, the fact is that it IS going to happen, like it or not.

Heppner wrote an opinion piece some years ago that new descriptions should be limited to "real" publications, and not online pubs. Of course, by that time the handwriting was on the wall (as we say, meaning inevitable) and he was ignored. Just like when Kodak (which invented the digital camera) elected to stay with film- it was pretty obvious the the technology had changed, and no matter how hard the change was fought, it was going to change how we act and interact.

Using photos, of course, is wrought with risk. Color morphs, bad photos, and intentionally manipulated photos. The latter would indicate that not only a subject species be described, but that the photos be subject to expert analysis for manipulation. Too, there is no opportunity for MtDNA analysis, which has matured and is revealing amazing relationships- and lack thereof. "Synonym" seems to be often written in recent papers.

That said, taboos against collecting, and against amateurs, prevents both discover and physical study. In the future, scientists will be relegated to using only photos.

Too, as remote communities gain access to technology such as cell phone cameras, images of unknown taxa will increase. I have one lizard photo on iNaturalist that hasn't been identified, and other unpublished images of reptiles and amphibians from unexplored regions that may well reveal a new sp or ssp.

So the pros and cons all have merit. None will change the adoption of photos for new descriptions.

Chuck

Chuck