LOGIN

RSS Facebook Twitter YouTube
GLOSSARY       

SEARCHGLOSSARY

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

PROFILESEARCH

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





 

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Poecilia kempeski
April 19, 2013
6:26 pm
Avatar
Erich
Member
Forum Posts: 86
Member Since:
September 30, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Fake, April Fools`joke...or...

... look here:

 

http://www.lebendgebaerende-aq.....1-2013.pdf

 

April 19, 2013
7:54 pm
Avatar
Amazonas
Member
Forum Posts: 25
Member Since:
July 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Thanks, Erich.

It is a Fools' Day fake. Why is it that 99% of the ''April Fools' Day'' fakes are dealing with description of new species taxa?

April 19, 2013
8:09 pm
Avatar
Erich
Member
Forum Posts: 86
Member Since:
September 30, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Very good!

 

That´s it...

 

... but I don`t know, why fools prefer dealing with descriptions of "new" fish species...

April 19, 2013
9:07 pm
Avatar
Amazonas
Member
Forum Posts: 25
Member Since:
July 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

At least I hope that it is a fake :-)

 

Edit: A friend of mine told me that it is not a joke.  😕 If it is not a joke (fake article) then it would be the biggest embarrassment ever. Is there anyone who is able to let us know about it?

 

April 20, 2013
10:36 am
Avatar
Erwin
Member
Forum Posts: 22
Member Since:
March 10, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Can't find a reason why it's not a valid description, if not everything is faked (types etc.), but that doesn't look like. The species description contains the "magic words" 'n. sp.' as well as types (syntypes).  The code only says: "After 1999 the proposal of a new species-group nominal taxon must include the fixation for it of a name-bearing type (a holotype or expressly indicated syntypes) in a manner that enables the subsequent recognition of that type".

April 20, 2013
10:49 am
Avatar
Amazonas
Member
Forum Posts: 25
Member Since:
July 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Thanks, Erwin. Well, I still hope its a joke. Otherwise it has to be treated as unscientific (see here Kaiser, H., B.I. Crother, C.M.R. Kelly, L. Luiselli, M. O’Shea, H. Ota, P. Passos, W.D. Schleip & W. Wüster (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) and hence not valid. I send an e-mail to the editor, to find out.

April 20, 2013
11:46 am
Avatar
Erwin
Member
Forum Posts: 22
Member Since:
March 10, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The question is if the content of the reference you gave is conform with what the Code says? Peer-review is not one of the arguments neccessary for a valid description acc. to the Code. And only the Code counts! Anyhow what means peer-review? Peer-review is already if one of my friends (all my friends are experts in one or the other way) read my ms before publishing and tell me their opinion. Forget about peer-review as the absolute tool, it helps but can't eliminate all mistakes.

The whole Code is available online, so it should not be a copyright problem to point on the important articles:

"Article 13. Names published after 1930.
13.1. Requirements. To be available, every new name published after 1930 must satisfy the
provisions of Article 11 and must
13.1.1. be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are
purported to differentiate the taxon, or
13.1.2. be accompanied by a bibliographic reference to such a published statement, even if
the statement is contained in a work published before 1758, or in one that is not consistently
binominal, or in one that has been suppressed by the Commission (unless the Commission
has ruled that the work is to be treated as not having been published [Art. 8.7]), or
13.1.3. be proposed expressly as a new replacement name (nomen novum) for an available
name, whether required by any provision of the Code or not.
Recommendation 13A. Intent to differentiate. When describing a new nominal taxon, an
author should make clear his or her purpose to differentiate the taxon by including with it a
diagnosis, that is to say, a summary of the characters that differentiate the new nominal taxon
from related or similar taxa.
Recommendation 13B. Language. Authors should publish diagnoses of new taxa in
languages widely used internationally in zoology. The diagnoses should also be given in languages used in the regions relevant to the taxa diagnosed."

Art. 11 is more technically.

 

April 20, 2013
12:28 pm
Avatar
Amazonas
Member
Forum Posts: 25
Member Since:
July 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Well, I did not mentioned peer-review but unscientific (see the paper by Kaiser et al. 2013 http://tinyurl.com/cntjerb ). The contribution must be a fake (fools day joke). I can not believe that phrases like 'Poecilia kempkesi ist ein Kulturfolger und somit in Suriname
vor allem in der Nähe menschlicher Behausung zu finden' can be treated as serious. Or take a look on the title of the paper ''Apropos Guppys...".... It speaks for itself.

April 20, 2013
3:18 pm
Avatar
Erwin
Member
Forum Posts: 22
Member Since:
March 10, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I agree with you that this sentence is empirically not proven in any way. And of course, the title sucks, but is also to be understand from the previous placed other guppy articles. The whole article acts as if the author would speak about an otherwise published original description, but it was just published ahead of it.

April 21, 2013
3:18 pm
Avatar
Amazonas
Member
Forum Posts: 25
Member Since:
July 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Do not fall into the trap, Erwin. ;-)

April 22, 2013
12:48 pm
Avatar
Erwin
Member
Forum Posts: 22
Member Since:
March 10, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Well, if it was intended to be an April fools day prank, it turned out to become to serious, because it got everything what a valid description had to have:

1. To be available, every new name published after 1930 must satisfy the provisions of Article 11 and must 13.1.1. be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon..."

- This is the case ("Neben der auffälligen Ähnlichkeit der Poecilia-Arten in Suriname war doch auch ein deutlicher Unterschied festzustellen: Poecilia kempkesi zeigt eine ausgeprägt silber-metallische Körperfarbe, Poecilia picta ist gelb oder hellrot, P. vivipara ist orange und P. parae aus Suriname zeigt eine blaue Färbung")

2. Every new specific and subspecific name published after 1999, ... must be accompanied in the original publication
16.4.1. by the explicit fixation of a holotype, or syntypes, for the nominal taxon

- This is the case ("RMNH 34387, Paramaribo, coll. W.C. v. Heurn, XIII 1911"). Just had a phonecall with Leiden, this RMNH number exists, data are correctly given by Poeser, and it contains amongst other fishes also Guppys from Paramaribo.

3. "Article 13. Names published after 1930. 13.1. Requirements. To be available, every new name published after 1930 must satisfy the provisions of Article 11 and must 13.1.1. be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon, or 13.1.2. be accompanied by a bibliographic reference to such a published statement, even..."

- Checked with Lindholm et al. 2005, the article is about Australian guppys, but it contains, as Poeser writes, DNA checks from guppys from Surinam, and they are very different to others.

4. Recommendation 16A of the Code. Means of explicitly indicating names as intentionally new. To
avoid uncertainty about their intentions, authors proposing new names (nomina nova), including
new replacement names, are advised to make their intentions explicit by using in headings, or at
first use of new names in proposals, appropriate abbreviations of Latin terms such as "fam.
nov.", "g. nov.", "sp. nov.", "ssp. nov.", or some strictly equivalent expression such as "new
family", "new genus", "new species", "new subspecies", "n. fam.", "n. g.", "n. sp.",..."

- It's there, the magic words "n. sp."

So, please tell me, why it should be an April fools day prank. And tell me if it is one, why it didn't turn out to become serious?

April 22, 2013
4:12 pm
Avatar
Amazonas
Member
Forum Posts: 25
Member Since:
July 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

ICZN: 16.4. Species-group names: fixation of name-bearing types to be explicit. Every new specific and subspecific name published after 1999, ... , must be accompanied in the original publication...
ICZN:16.4.1.by the explicit fixation of a holotype, or syntypes, for the nominal taxon [Arts. ... 72.3, 73.1.1, 73.2 ...], ...
ICZN: 72.3. Name-bearing types must be fixed originally for nominal species-group taxa established after 1999. A proposal of a new nominal species-group taxon after 1999 ..., must include the fixation of a holotype ... or syntypes .... In the case of syntypes, only those specimens expressly indicated by the author to be those upon which the new taxon was based are fixed as syntypes.

There is no designation of a holotype or any syntypes. Poeser (2013): „Vier Männchen, Syntypen von Poecilia kempkesi n. sp. .... Alle Exemplare stammen aus der Typenserie RMNH 34387, ... „ This is not an explicit fixation because nobody knows which specimens of  RMNH 34387 have to be the sytypes. Hence, no valid description.

Both Poeser and the editor of the journal are (obviously) unfamiliar with the Code and the zoological systematics. So, they do not realize that their 'fools day' fake article turns almost into an inadvertent descriptions of a 'new' taxon. Fortunately, there are not all 'magic words' used.

April 29, 2013
8:19 am
Avatar
Matt
Málaga, Spain
Admin
Forum Posts: 8239
Member Since:
June 13, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

So is this 'paper' a joke or not guys?

Cake or death?
April 29, 2013
4:26 pm
Avatar
Amazonas
Member
Forum Posts: 25
Member Since:
July 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hi Matt, dear all,

it turns out that it is not a Fools day prank. There are so many jokes included and and the text is a full of exaggerations. This is why I thought it must be a Fools day prank. However, I am afraid that Erwin is right to treat the name as available.

Cheers, amazonas.

Forum Timezone: Europe/Paris

Most Users Ever Online: 246

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Devices in use: Desktop (1)

Top Posters:

Stefan: 1567

Plaamoo: 1253

mikev: 1134

Malti: 1099

Mark Duffill: 1012

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 30280

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 4

Forums: 10

Topics: 4595

Posts: 36615

Newest Members: cassman66, crabhappy, StygianSteel, marcelmueller, foreverlearning

Administrators: dunc: 1323, Matt: 8239