BCSS - Forum

Lindsey wrote:Formal publication of a new species on Facebook? Really???

Definitely not. Although electronic publication is permissible it has to be in an archiveable format such as a .pdf file with an ISBN or ISSN number.

I don't know that there is any mention of a formal description anywhere yet?

I first saw the pictures on a German forum last night.

Phil_SK wrote:

Formal publication of a new species on Facebook?

Definitely not. Although electronic publication is permissible it has to be in an archiveable format such as a .pdf file with an ISBN or ISSN number.

Good (thanks, Phil ) that was what I had thought.

So, the taxon under discussion is Aztekium valdezii n.n. (nomen nudum), it seems.

Does anyone have a link to where on facebook it's been posted?

Edit: Ah, just saw the link in the 2nd post.

Lets hope DNA studies are done first this time to prove relationships or possible hybridity before the morphologists try and classify or reclassify it on visual characteristics alone, as they did with Digitostigma.

As soon as intermediate forms are found hybridity is always suggested, which may be true. However I recall when discovered it was even suggested that Aztekium hintonii itself was a hybrid between Geohintonia and Aztekium ritteri, but so far never proved.

One thing I think the "rules" ought to require in this day and age is GPS coordinates must be deposited with the type species for valid publication (that does not mean published in the original description itself for habitat strippers to read). There has been uncertainty in the past as to where exactly the type was collected, even deliberately wrong localities given to prevent others collecting it, something GPS coordinates can now eliminate.

If the discoverer does not want to disclose where it came from then simply they should not be able to legally give it a name, but just distribute is as sp. nova. Like it or not science depends on openness and later workers being able to check your original material, habitat distribution and conclusions.

Yep Dave, very well put and you make an important point about the type locality of a new taxon. I know very little about Cactaceae but in the world of "other succulents" there are occasions when vague info only, or even deliberate misinformation about locality, has been given, to confuse possible habitat-strippers as you rightly say.

Just a pedantic point, though I stand corrected if necessary: I thought that n.n. (nomen nudum) was for use when a specific name is discussed before formal publication. E.g. for Aztekium (an established genus), the new taxon could be discussed or distributed before publication as either Aztekium sp.nov. or Aztekium valdezii n.n. ..... but not yet as Aztekium valdezii sp.nov.

DaveW wrote: If the discoverer does not want to disclose where it came from then simply they should not be able to legally give it a name, but just distribute is as sp. nova. Like it or not science depends on openness and later workers being able to check your original material, habitat distribution and conclusions.

The problem comes when poachers read a paper describing a new genus and go in and rip out every plant they can find. It seems to me that when dealing with a species that is likely to be at risk from this(as this Aztekuim probably will be) some precautions should be taken, even something like restricting knowledge of the exact location to people who can demonstrate that they have a legitimate interest in the plants. There's not much point in describing a species only to find that after the paper is published what may be the only population of the species has been stolen.

You will note T_B I said GPS coordinates deposited with the type species. That would be in a recognised herbarium where most strippers would not have access to them as if published with the original description. However in the past even some botanists have been accused of being habitat strippers and selling collected plants into the market!

It is now virtually impossible to stop people discovering habitats. In the past collectors used to ask the local population in likely areas if anybody had been collecting plants there. Now even mentioning what type of rocks or terrain they grow on can help people using Google Earth to locate all these features within an area and get their GPS coordinates before they ever set foot in habitat, even better than visually from the ground itself.

Plus we are assuming it is botanists who first find the plants. The history of the Cactaceae shows that most plants are discovered by amateurs, the botanists merely naming many of them. Therefore the so called habitat strippers are often the first to find the species anyway, therefore it's often the botanists and botanical gardens who don't know where they come from.

Also remember when talking about new species we usually mean new to science, since the indigenous population has always known about them and if not already exploiting them will usually do so if they find anybody taking an interest in them and paying for them.

Afraid the only way to keep plants safe in habitat is to flood the market with them through propagation so it is not financially worthwhile collecting from habitat. The short sighted "no plants from habitat for propagation by the trade" mentality is the biggest threat to their survival.

Echinocactus grusonii is comparatively rare in habitat, but what sort of a market would there now be for collected grusonii's since horticulture is already knee deep in them?

jfabiao wrote:Sign of the times. You need to be the first to mention it, like it, share it, deny it, dismiss it, whatever. Just be the first, everything else falls short of that - be it courtesy, sensibility, you name it.

Absolutely right! I'm 100% with you!

Now, the hunt has begun...

Eduart

Hi All,

In regards to Aztekium valdezii - please read the opening section in English:

http://cactusi.com/f/?topic=4742.msg48540;topicseen#new

Cheers,
eduart