How a new species is named | Dr Dave Hone (original) (raw)

Once you have identified what you think is a new species, it will require a name. Sadly this is not just a case of dreaming up an interesting moniker and announcing it to the world (though that is part of it) but a reliable source of information and documentation of the identity of the species is required for the new form.

First of all a holotype must be designated. This is the single specimen that acts as the identifier for the entire species. It should show the key features that help identify the species and mark it out as unique and new. A taxonomist may also identify a series of paratypes, related specimens that show additional features (like different colour patterns, or juveniles, or a male if the holotype is a female) but that also help identify the species. These specimens must be held in museums (typically, though there are some exceptions) where they can be accessed by other researchers and will be kept in the appropriate conditions to ensure they are preserved for posterity. Museums naturally place great importance on holotypes and paratypes and major collections like the Smithsonian or the Natural History Museum in London may hold hundreds of holotypes. This makes them critical to biology as a field, since the holotypes help define species.

Secondly, a description of the news species is required. It must be defined – what features (behavioural, anatomical, genetic) mark it out as being unique and new, and how can it be distinguished from close relatives. Details of the origins of the holotype and paratypes must also be given: how, where and when were they collected, in what kind of environment (or for fossils, which rock beds)? This is the part when things can break down – clearly some things are somewhat subjective (are these enough characteristics to distinguish two species or not), but many characters are well established and used, while others should be avoided. We know for example that colour is extremely variable in many species and some occasional colour types keep recurring (like all black forms or albinos) so using this to help define a species is a bad idea, but something more consistent and less variable (like the number of vertebrae or number of toes) is likely to form a good character.

Then a new name is required. Species are always identified by both a generic name and a species name when written down. In Homo sapiens, Homo is the genus and sapiens the species. If a new species is being named, it must be identified which genus it belongs to and why, and then the species name can be added. Species names can be repeated between genera (so lots of genera have a species termed 'magnus' for big or 'annectens' for different etc.), but genera must be unique. Note that often the media reports the naming of a new species, when in fact a new genus is being created. It may be that a new species is being erected to go into that genus, but it may also be that a species is being taken out of one genus and placed in its own genus. That doesn't change the species any more than changing the number plate on your car changes the car, it merely changes how we identify it and denotes what we think it is. Through a historical quirk, animals are in one naming system and plants, fungi and bacteria in another and generic names can be duplicated between them, so there are some animals with the same names as some plants but it's obviously hard to get them mixed up, and these duplicates are pretty rare.

Finally, this description and data must be published in some form that is internationally accessible and archived in multiple locations. Until recently this meant getting papers into established public or academic libraries in multiple countries, but now electronic publication of names is permitted making things faster and easier. Oddly though, peer-review is not a requirement of identifying names and this can cause problems through those who deliberately or accidentally flaunt the conventions of naming and create names that cause confusion, not solve it.

However, there are both conventions and huge rulebooks in place to govern the creation and management of names. This is a complex and unwieldy set of instructions, but is there to provide stability and reduce confusion. As I have said before, the whole of biology ultimately rests on taxonomy, so avoiding messing with names unnecessarily or incorrectly is a serious issue and making sure the whole system can be followed and works is thus a major undertaking, and is why names are taken so seriously. Calling Apatosaurus by the out of date name 'Brontosaurus' is not just a harmless quirk, but belies what a species (or in this case, genus) is and what that name represents, and hence is taken seriously and the persistence of an incorrect name is more than academic pettiness and nit-picking, but fundamental to how we see organisms and their place in the evolutionary tree of life.

The erection of a new species is really quite simple in principle and the actual procedure can be simple and fast. A few lines of text of the appropriate nature may be enough (if it is published) but while it is common, it should not be frivolous. Careful consideration of the characters at hand, the available data on populations, their distribution and their evolutionary history taken into account, and as far as possible detailed comparisons made to closely related species to make sure this is not just a one-off mutant or something similar. Good taxonomy takes years of experience and familiarity with the group in question and months of work may go into a few lines of dry text that herald the identification of a new form of life. 'Giving birth' to a new species can be quite an event and I'm proud to have contributed to several new genera and species making it into the roll call of life on Earth (well, past life in the case of the fossils).