文獻來源:Gentile G, Snell H. 2009. Conolophus marthae sp.nov. (Squamata, Iguanidae), a new species of land iguana from the Galápagos archipelago. Zootaxa 2201: 1-10. [全文下載]
Abstract
Conolophus marthae sp. nov., a new species endemic to Volcan Wolf of northern Isla Isabela of the Galápagos archipelago, is described. The new species is morphologically, behaviorally, and genetically distinguished from the other two congeneric species C. subcristatus and C. pallidus. Besides the taxonomic implications, C. marthae sp. nov. is extremely important as it is the only evidence of deep divergence within the Galápagos land iguana lineage.
Minelli A. 2009. Commentaries on Gentile & Snell (2009): an introduction. Zootaxa 2201: 11-11. [全文下載]
In this volume of Zootaxa, Gentile and Snell (2009) describe a new species of terrestrial iguana from the Galápagos Islands. The extreme geographical localization and the very small estimated size of the only known population of the new species are regarded by the authors as incompatible with the killing of a specimen to be fixed as the holotype to be preserved as a museum specimen. As an alternative, they have marked a ‘living holotype’ with a Passive Integrated Transponder and chosen to document its existence and its diagnostic traits, pending the specimen’s natural death and eventual preservation, by providing information on molecular characters, specimen external description and measurements, photos and video recording. This approach to the nomenclaturally critical issue of type fixation provides an opportunity to present here a few additional statements on these contentious matters, written by three colleagues whose opposite views are already known to our readers. With these commentary papers by Thomas Donegan (2009), Alain Dubois (2009) and André Nemésio (2009), Zootaxa closes, for the time being, this public debate.
Donegan TM. 2009. Type specimens, samples of live individuals and the Galapagos Pink Land Iguana. Zootaxa 2201: 12-20. [全文下載]
Abstract
The nomenclatural implications of Gentile & Snell (2009)'s innovations in the designation of a type specimen - that is sampled and tagged but not killed - are discussed. The paper also responds to Nemésio (2009)'s criticism of Donegan (2008), where I argued that descriptions based on samples of live individuals are valid. I also discuss whether recent descriptions of such a nature involve a different degree of scientific rigour to other descriptions.
Nemésio A. 2009. On the live holotype of the Galápagos pink land Iguana, Conolophus marthae Gentile & Snell, 2009 (Squamata: Iguanidae): is it an acceptable exception? Zootaxa 2201: 21-25. [全文下載]
Abstract
The Galápagos pink land iguana, Conolophus marthae Gentile & Snell, 2009 (Squamata: Iguanidae) is the latest example of a species being described without the proper deposition of a preserved onomatophore (name-bearing type specimen) in a taxonomic collection. Differently from other recent similar descriptions, the holotype of Conolophus marthae was marked with a Passive Integrated Transponder, allegedly allowing it to be tracked and found after its death, when it would be deposited at the Governmental Galápagos collection. Although apparently fulfilling the criteria of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, I here argue that this practice should not be followed and that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should urgently act to standardize criteria that should be met by those describing species found at the brink of extinction.
Dubois A. 2009. Endangered species and endangered knowledge. Zootaxa 2201: 26-29. [全文下載]
Abstract
The recent discovery of a new species of land iguana in the Galapagos (Tzika et al. 2008; Gentile et al. 2009; Gentile & Snell 2009) is indeed an exciting novelty, of great interest to all zoologists and evolutionary biologists. This species being apparently represented only by a very small population with a very limited range, it was described as a new taxon following an unusual procedure: no fixed specimen(s) (holotype or syntypes) was deposited in a permanent collection, but a live specimen, in which a transponder had been inserted and which then had been released, was designated as holotype. As analysed in detail by Dubois & Nemésio (2007), because of the unclear wording of Art. 16.4.2 of the Code, whether such a nomen is nomenclaturally available is open to question, and pending a clarification of the published Rules of the Code, will remain so. In this context, some comments on the paper by Gentile & Smell (2009), from a taxonomic and nomenclatural point of view, are in order. I thank Zhi-Qiang Zhang, Chief Editor of Zootaxa, for inviting me to contribute to this discussion.