Well this is fun1: an entomologist in New Zealand has decided to name a recently discovered moth species after the movie Avatar.
.jpg "Arctesthes avatar")
Arctesthes avatar courtesy of the Forest & Bird press release
The moth in question was recently discovered on a parcel of land in central New Zealand which is currently slated to become an opencast coal mine. In an effort to prevent the area from being destroyed, Forest & Bird (a conservation group in New Zealand) staged a BioBlitz to draw attention to the unique flora & fauna found there. After realizing that they had discovered an undescribed species at the BioBlitz, entomologist Brian Patrick and his son decided to hold a contest, encouraging the public to come up with a potential name for the new species to further draw attention to the cause.
After nearly 100 names were submitted, it was announced June 19, 2012 that the winning name will be Arctesthes avatar. From the press release:
Brian said the Avatar moth was a clear winner. “It was by far the best one. It’s a novel name and the movie is about a mining company that threatens to devastate a human-like species that’s living in harmony with nature. It’s just a really good analogy.”
As we’ve seen with other species names referencing pop-culture icons, the New Zealand media picked up the story and ran with it, publishing the story, the name, and a photo of the moth. Normally this would be great exposure for the researchers (and biodiversity science in general), getting some press for a new species in a location that’s not that far from populated areas.
Unfortunately for the researchers, they may have put the cart before the horse on this one by publicizing their discovery before publishing it themselves.
Unlike other sciences, where you may be able to get away with leaking your results a little ahead of your publication2, when it comes to naming species it’s incredibly important to wait until you’ve actually published. The reason being that if the new species name appears in a publication that has multiple, simultaneously printed copies (like the NZ Herald/Greymouth Star newspapers3) with even a semblance of a description (like “striped moth”, which has been used repeatedly with this story) and/or a photograph (see above), whoever wrote that article becomes the authority behind the name! Nevermind that Brian Patrick is the taxonomic expert, collected the specimen, recognized it as being unique, discovered where it belonged in the tree of life and, in this instance, acquired DNA evidence. All of that will go unrecognized4 and the first journalist who wrote up the story off the press release will go down as the one who formally described the species!
Simply put, instead of being recorded as Arctesthes avatar Patrick & Patrick 2012, the species will be known as Arctesthes avatar RandomJournalist 2012. Oops!
The fact that new species descriptions needn’t be published in a peer-reviewed journal may come as a surprise, but I think it’s an effort to keep taxonomy an accessible science for anyone, anywhere. It’s clear that some funny things can happen when there are few restrictions on where a species can be described, and as the Code of Zoological Nomenclature moves into the digital age with the next edition, many taxonomists are hoping that registration services like ZooBank will play a big role in new species descriptions and validation in the future. Until the new “Code” is ratified however, unfortunate events like what happened here with Arctesthes avatar are possible.
So remember kids, when you go to describe a new species, publish first, publicize second!
UPDATE 27/06/2012: As Kai pointed out in the comments below, the authors have escaped this embarrassing scenario because none of the media stories will likely include enough information to form a proper type designation.
——————–
1- My definition of fun and that of the entomologist involved are probably different here…
2- Although I would assume this is frowned upon as well.
3- Thanks to David Winter of the Atavism for help tracking these sources down.
4- They’ll still publish their work, but it won’t actually be a new species description anymore.
Haha wow that sucks, and this is hilarious…note to self, never announce anything in case I discover new species…
Hahahahahahahah! Oh MAAAAAAAN. This would be an awful situation.
HOWEVER. However. This name is not yet available under The Code. Why you ask?
Section 16.4 of the ICZN, which reads:
“Species-group names: fixation of name bearing types to be explicit. Every new specific and subspecific name published after 1999, except a new replacement name (a nomen novum), for which the name bearing type of the nominal taxon it denotes is fixed automatically [72.7], must be accompanied in the original publication
16.4.1 by the explicit fixation of a holotype, or syntypes, for the nominal taxon [72.2, 72.3, 73.1.1, 73.2 and Recommendations 73A and 73C], and,
16.4.2 where the holotype or syntypes are extant specimens, by a statement of intent that they will be (or are) deposited in a collection and a statement indicating the name and location of that collection”
In other words, without fixation of a type (since this is a new name after 1999), as well as an indication of the depository, this name is not considered available under The Code. When Patrick and Patrick publish their description it will be considered available. Such descriptions would have been available before 2000, but not anymore.
Another big HOWEVER: releasing such information before publication is very sloppy, and results in much confusion. Never ever give out a new name before the paper has been published. It’s just asking for trouble.
But it really does pay to know The Code back to front for these situations. It’s the closest thing Zoology has to a governing legal document.
~Kai
Ah, the type designation, can’t believe I missed that clause… Looks like they dodged a bullet this time. Thanks for catching that Kai!
I guess another pop-culture name will survive for your enjoyment! 😉
I seriously don’t understand most patronyms and pop-culture names. The only three kinds of names that make sense to me are: those that refer to a particular aspect of the organism (generally some interesting or diagnostic aspect); those that refer to the type location; and those that honor the person who did the original collecting but is not an author on the paper. Some of the groaners Neal Evenhuis came up with really get to me.
There are right ways and wrong ways to engage the popular media in new discoveries, and yup, this one is tending towards the kind-of-wrongish end of the spectrum. They were indeed saved by the lack of a type designation in this case, but still . . .
The bigger issue is that this sort of media attention can be a double-edged sword for the field of taxonomy. On the one hand, it’s great that the general public gets a glimpse every now and then into the science we do (although some of the media reports on this story even messed up there – with statements that the new name had to be “approved” by the scientific community, as if we all weigh in on a New Species Name Doodle Poll every now and then). On the other hand, based on popular media coverage, a lot of members of the public might be under the impression that only two new species have been described so far this year: the Avatar Moth and the Beyonce-Butt Fly (in fact, I think we’re juuuuuust a couple thousand over that number). And of course it may also perpetuate the notion that taxonomists are a group of asocial dweebs with encyclopedic knowledge of science fiction and a somewhat lame sense of humour (when in fact I, for example, am a fairly social dweeb, plus I’ve forgotten some of my science fiction trivia) (also, I’m not denying that I’ve come up with some pop-culture-science-fictionesque names myself). The media focus on these rare pop-culture-friendly names is funny and all, but it also unintentionally(?) trivializes the work we do.
Finally, of course, these names are only funny/cute/clever for a while. In 30 or 40 years who will make the immediate connection to Avatar? or Beyonce? or Shrek? Think of all those phenotypically distinctive yet ephemeral pop stars from the 1980s who could live on in an insect cabinet while future databasers scratch their heads and wonder about the etymology of “boygeorgei” or “fineyoungcannibalsorum” . . .
Agree with you on all points Terry (although I might describe a “rickrolli” every 5 years to keep people on their toes).
The misconception about what we as taxonomists do and the number of species being described is something that I’m actually quite worried about (and the reason that I despise “Top 10 New Species” lists). I’ve been intending to start a new weekly series specifically addressing this idea, but obviously haven’t done so yet. I think it’s time I stop procrastinating and start sharing some of the incredible flies that are (properly) described on a regular basis!
Yes, Top Ten New Species lists . . . they’re on my Top Ten Science Media Pet Peeves list.
I really like your idea about a regular feature on OTHER new species. And it reminded me that I had started a “new species under our noses” series last spring on the Lyman blog that got as far as . . . oh . . . one installment. Clearly I need to go back to the archives every now and then. Or stop describing posts as “the first of a series”.
So many flies, so little media coverage.
rickrolli – I like it. Just make sure to choose a species that stands no chance of being synonymized with astleyi.