Who names new species of fish?

The April FOTM Contest Poll is open!
FishForums.net Fish of the Month
🏆 Click to vote! 🏆

Ichthys

Mostly New Member
Joined
May 3, 2015
Messages
1,396
Reaction score
1,336
Location
GB
This is very much a question, not an answer. It has always interested me but I know very little about it.

Let’s say I discover a new species on a collecting trip. What happens next?

I assume specimens are sent or taken to a museum(?) so that we have them available for further study. Holotypes, paratypes and all that. Who studies them? Does it need someone to be willing, and they need to get funding? Or are they studied as a matter of course?

Who gets to name them and how does that work? Does the ‘finder’ get to name them? Does he/she get the opportunity to suggest names?
Dr Sven Kullander seems to be the arbiter of all things fishy. Does he have the final say?
 
Like anything else these days, the answer is not simple. It may make your eyes spin, but you might have a read here https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/speciation-the-origin-of-new-species-26230527/

I will leave it to others to do the work and I will just accept it. As you can see from the above link, species definition has changed over the decades.

Traditionally, the person who first describes a newfound plant or animal is entitled to name it,
from https://scripps.ucsd.edu/giving/name-new-species
 
Who gets to name a new fish species is not always that simple. First, it has to be determined if it belongs to an already known genus. The second name can be referred to the collector, location or something or someone else. If they can't categorized in a certain genus, a new genus name will be made.
 
I got asked this question on another forum so I put together this explanation.

The scientific name assigned to each living species is absolutely unique. Common names frequently vary so they are not reliable for identification. Every living organism has only one unique and internationally recognized scientific name.
A binomial nomenclature system is used to name all life, botanical and zoological; simply put, “nomenclature” means the names along with the system used to assign those names, and “binomial” means two names. These two are the genus (plural genera) and the species (or specific epithet). This system was developed by a Swedish botanist, zoologist and physician named Carl Linnaeus who lived from 1707-1778. In 1735, Linnaeus published his Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis; in translation, “System of nature through the three kingdoms of nature, according to classes, orders, genera and species, with [generic] characters, [specific] differences, synonyms, places.” Usually referred to as simply Systema naturae, by the thirteenth edition in 1767 it had become a monumental classification of all then-known species of life on earth. The system further developed into modern Linnaean taxonomy, the hierarchically-organized biological classification that is today used to classify all species of animals and plants. Strict rules govern this system, established and enforced by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature [ICZN].
The scientific name (genus and species) is the last and most specific in the hierarchy of scientific classification. The genus is part of a Family, and the Family belongs to a certain Order; for our purposes, we do not need to go higher than the Order. The Family and Order can each be further divided into “Super” and “Sub” families and orders. Each of these terms includes “clades” or clusters of fish that are phylogenetically related. Phylogeny is sometimes referred to as the natural relationships and is an attempt to construct the history of all life based on the evidence from both living and fossil organisms. When classifications are based on phylogenies we can ascertain (and predict) how that group of related fish function, and since this tells us something about their behaviours and requirements it is of interest to aquarists.
Defining “species” is very complex; for our purposes, we may simply consider that the species is the individual fish that is unique from all other fish species. When two or more species are phylogenetically related they will be combined in the same genus. As an example, all fish in the catfish genera Aspidoras, Brochis and Corydoras have a very similar general appearance, easily recognized; but beyond this they share phylogenetical relationships more closely than they do with any other species. Certain specific relationships exist within the species, certain other specific relationships exist between all the species in the genus, and still other relationships exist between all three of the genera within the Family. As an example, Brochis splendens and Corydoras aeneus are almost identical in colouring and pattern; but they are in separate genera because of the rays in the dorsal fin; all Corydoras species have seven rays in the dorsal fin, while all Brochis species have more than ten rays in the dorsal.
Anyone may describe a new species and name it, but this is usually the work of trained scientists with experience as ichthyologists; the name must not be one that has already been used for any species in the same genus, and it cannot be the name of the person doing the naming. The first published name assigned to a new species has priority and remains the valid name with respect to the species; any subsequent species name given to the same species is invalid and may be termed a synonym once it is determined to be the same species. The species name is always the first name that was published for that species, and this name can only change under a few very strictly-enforced rules of the ICZN. The genus may change, sometimes many times, as the result of new scientific study. The Serpae Tetra for instance, Hyphessobrycon eques, has been assigned to five different genera since it was first described in 1882 by Steindachner as Cheirodon eques, but the species name “eques” never changes.
The genus name is either Greek or Latin, and is always capitalized; the species epithet is always Latinized and is never capitalized. The genus and species are in italics, followed by the name of the original describer of that species and the year in which it was named in standard uppercase. For example, Carnegiella marthae MEYERS 1927 tells us that this fish, the black-winged hatchetfish, was first described and named by Dr. George Meyers in 1927. When the describer and date are in parentheses, as for the Black Phantom Tetra Hyphessobrycon megalopterus (EIGENMANN, 1915), it indicates that the species is no longer in the genus to which this species was first assigned. In this example, Eigenmann originally placed this fish in the genus Megalamphodus but Stanley Weitzman and Lisa Palmer determined that the fish actually shares certain phylogenetic characteristics with the other species in the rosy tetra clade within the Hyphessobrycon genus, and in 1997 they published their findings and re-assigned the species to Hyphessobrycon. But as Eigenmann was the first to describe this fish as a new and distinct species, his choice of the species name remains valid and his own name as the describer is placed in parentheses.
The genus name quite often comes from some feature of the fish in that particular group; for example, the pencilfish are now all in the single genus Nannostomus, which comes from the Greek nanno (= small) and stomus (= mouth). When a scientist describing a new species recognizes that the fish has characteristics that are not common with the fish in all other existing genera, a new genus may be erected. The fish responsible for the establishment of a new genus is called the type species, which means that it has the special characteristics that will identify all future species within that genus.
The species epithet may denote some feature of the species, such as the false or green neon tetra, Paracheirodon simulans [= similar] in reference to the similarity in colour and pattern of this fish to Paracheirodon innesi [the neon tetra]; or it may honour the discoverer or another individual, as for example Hemigrammus bleheri named after Heiko Bleher who discovered the species; or it may refer to the location where it occurs, as for Corydoras guapore that inhabits the Rio Guapore system in South America.
The value of this binomial nomenclature system is certainty and clarity. Common names often differ even from one part of a country to another part, and certainly vary from one country to another, and are usually specific only to that language. In contrast, the scientific name can be used all over the world, in all languages, avoiding confusion and difficulties of translation. And it creates stability; though far from being absolute, the stability from initial name onwards is still an advantage for science and the hobbyist.
 
Huge question.
If it's done correctly, the describer studies or has studied the DNA info and physical info (the fish used to describe a new species should be preserved in a museum or university somewhere) of all possible closely related species. They can then make a comparison with the newly found species. It is dissected, and its DNA is analyzed. The results are published in a paper, after it is peer reviewed. This means other students of the fish can comment.
Once published, ideally in a known journal, though some have appeared in hobbyist publications, it is considered described.
The description can be shot down if it has been poorly done, or if it's a duplicate. If two people describe it, the first published name stands.
Sometimes, it can be discovered the Genus has been used for another group. One of the killies I used to keep was redescribed when a group of Turkish students used a program to discover its Genus name, Adamus,, was used for an insect previously. It became Fenerbahce formosus, named after their favourite football team...

So anyone can do this, but they need to be able to do the slow, painstaking background work of researching the Genus, reading the DNA, etc. There have been talented amateurs who have successfully described species.
 
“Traditionally, the person who first describes a newfound plant or animal is entitled to name it,”

Anyone may describe a new species and name it….. it cannot be the name of the person doing the naming.

If two people describe it, the first published name stands.

So anyone in theory can do the work, and if the work determines it’s a new species, the describer gets to name it. And the name is valid until/unless proven otherwise.
 
Last edited:
There is a discussion about not naming fish for people, and sticking to where they're from or descriptive terms. There are egos involved, and politics. There is a twirler moth with strikingly small male parts and a shock of yellowy orange on its head recently named after an American politician, for example. and not everyone approves.

There's a beetle named by a Nazi after Hitler that has almost been driven to extinction because right wing extremists keep over-collecting it.

And a number of people have tried to pay people to name fish after them. Ever notice how many popular fish have axelrodi or even herbertaxelrodi in their names?
 
To my knowledge, Dr Axelrod, who wasn't a Dr, never described a fish himself. First off, the rule is you can't name a fish after yourself.
 
Didn’t TFH fund a lot of collecting expeditions into the Amazon? I’ll pay for your trip if you name one after me….
 
One researcher is rumoured to have accepted money from Axelrod in exchange for a newly found Corydoras to be named after the Dr. Have you ever seen Corydoras narcissus?
 
While I had nothing do with the discovery or naming thereof, There is a species of whiptail catfish (Sturisomatichthys) which is my last name with an i add

While it is considered tacky to name a species after oneself, it is not so for another authority to name it after the discoverer

Hemigrammus bleheri

scientificNameAuthorship
http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/scientificNameAuthorship
Géry & Mahnert, 1986

description

Binomial, bleheri, honouring the species’ discoverer, Heiko Bleheri
 
Last edited:
Everything Byron and GaryE have said is correct. I will add though that while technically anyone can do the work of describing species, it is incredibly difficult without an in-depth knowledge of both the morphology (physical characteristics) and DNA of the organism you're trying to describe. Without training in both, and without access to a laboratory and equipment with which to extract, purify, and amplify DNA, it would be essentially impossible for a layperson to describe a species on their own.

These days, the process of species description is extremely rigorous, and is primarily reliant on the DNA identification, as morphological identification can be unreliable for some groups. Back in the day, of course, it was all based on morphology, but DNA sequencing has revealed that even species that are physically identical are actually different species, so it's a more trusted technique in certain cases. It's good for science, but it does effectively bar laypeople from describing species unless they have the knowledge and equipment to produce good molecular (DNA) data.
 
I haven't seen a hobbyist description of a fish since DNA studies moved to the forefront. I think we're at the point we know that we can find creatures, and maybe suspect we have something unknown (nothing is new) from appearance or distribution, and then we have the harder task of finding someone who cares. I'm sure @Seisage is fabulously wealthy from their interest in taxonomy... If we can't eat it or sell it, it's hard to get money to study it, and scientists need to make a living too. There aren't any people doing the hard work of describing small and 'unimportant' species.

There were some meticulous hobbyists who learned the morphology well enough to do serious and credible descriptions in the past, but DNA technology erected a barrier even as it added so much to understanding. If a friend of mine looks very ill, I may be able to make an educated guess at what's wrong with him, but I'm sending him to a trained doctor and then to a trained surgeon. I'm not pulling out the hacksaw and the power tools.

I wish we had a different system for scientific papers that result from these studies. There is so much research hidden behind very expensive paywalls, and I often see papers that look extremely interesting, just out of reach. I'm a harmless parasite on the work of others. I like learning.
 
Interesting discussion. This must be why so many plecos just have a L number but no Latin name: Some explorer has identified them based on morphology, but no one has done the DNA work to formally identify them. Interestingly, it looks like the L's currently go up to 455. 455 species out there just waiting to be described by science!

It also sheds some light on those estimates you hear: "Scientists estimate that there are 30,000 undiscovered plant species..." Perhaps many or most of these species, like our poor, nameless plecos, are discovered but not formally described.
 

Most reactions

trending

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top