Description of a new species

This article type must comply with disciplinary practices for describing species, including deposition of specimens, and complying with nomenclature codes. Please consult with experts on species description before undertaking such an article.

New Species Description

Manuscripts that describe new or revised taxon names must be registered in ZooBank, as required by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, after article acceptance following peer review. This ensures that your article is officially recorded as the first paper to describe the new species. The ZooBank unique identification code (LSID—Life Science Identifier) should be provided at the final proofreading stage, on the first page of your manuscript, following the affiliations, so that it is included in your published article. An LSID is represented as a uniform resource name (URN) with the following format: urn:lsid:<Authority>:<Namespace>:<ObjectID>[:<Version>]. Authors will be asked to alert ZooBank with the final citation following publication. For further help registering with ZooBank, please go to the ZooBank help.

Link to source website

New species descriptions, be they single or multiple per manuscript, will be considered for peer review and publication preferably as part of a revision or review of a taxon. The subject editor will take a decision on forwarding such manuscripts for peer review on the basis of the criteria listed below combined with community-accepted best standards and practices used in the particular taxonomic group. Please consider the Criteria for new species descriptions in the Taxonomic Treatments section of the Author Guidelines before submission of your manuscript.

Link to source website

Stand-alone single species descriptions will be considered in well-studied taxa, fossils or if they represent monotypic (monophyletic) groups. Additional criteria for considering stand-alone single species descriptions will be that the species exhibits unusual characters that can change the concept of the higher taxon to which it belongs; the material is rich, providing information on the  biogeography, phylogeny, biology or ecology of the species, and there is little chance that other material from this region can be brought together within the foreseeable future; the higher taxon to which it belongs has not been reported from the (larger) geographic area where it occurs; species collected in areas of high conservation importance (Galapagos, for example); the new species is economically or medically important, being proven to be a pest, invasive species, transmitter of diseases, or otherwise. 

Stand-alone single species descriptions in poorly studied or hyperdiverse groups should be avoided, unless they are placed into the context of a review or revision, or the study provides rich data on their biology, ecology, hosts/parasite species, life cycle and immature stages descriptions and others.

The following guidelines are provided to ensure that other elements of the work follow modern standards and enable the full advantage of the ARPHA platform.

• Types and taxonomically important specimens. 

  • Mandatory: Verbatim data (or photos) of the specimen label(s) put in quotes, including, if known, the collection date, name of the collector(s), (old) locality name(s), field number(s), and date of deposition in the relevant museum should be included in the specimen records as well. Include latitude, longitude, elevation, habitat, microhabitat information of primary type material. For format of geographical coordinates see section "Main text" above.

  • Mandatory: The holotype should be deposited in a publicly accessible collection. For the other types or taxonomically important specimens the deposition in public collections is strongly recommended.

  • Strongly recommended: Permanent identifiers for all type specimens and related materials. Unique identifiers are for example museum collections specimen IDs. Unique identifiers can be provided also by international taxon-based databases that do not indicate ownership, such as AntWeb.org for ants, for example.

  • Strongly recommended:  Specimen occurrence records should follow the DarwinCore standard. Data on all types and related materials should be described in accordance to the following instructions, and, additionally, in a Linked table for primary biodiversity data.

  • Strongly recommended: Details on collection permits should be included.

  • Differential diagnosis. 

• • Mandatory: Differential diagnoses should be short, concise and meaningful. A diagnosis should be a means of confirming the identification after using the key, or allow a reader to recognize the distinctive features of the taxon at hand. Diagnoses should describe the species and not the sample, or in other words, they should be sample-independent. A list of diagnostic character states, or a diagnostic combination of character states, along with a statement about how each character state differs from closely related, or closely similar, species.

  • Mandatory: Include all relevant congeners and cite the reference taxonomy being followed, so that others can see which species have been considered.

  • Strongly recommended: Consider presenting the differential diagnosis in a table, if long lists of differences and/or species are included. 

  • Strongly recommended: The sample size for each species should be given whenever possible, so the reader can evaluate the strength of the evidence for diagnosability. 

• Morphological description. To the extent accepted as a minimum standard in the respective taxon group, so that to provide the diagnostic evidence that the species is new. Rich illustrative material including images, drawings, and where possible microCT should be included.

• Key. Mandatory in all cases of stand alone species description which are not put into the context of a revision; keys should help to identify the new species in relation to the closest congeners; in case of availability of a key to the species group, the new species should be placed within the key.

• DNA-based descriptions.  Given some controversies and criticism related to  "DNA-only" or "DNA-based" descriptions, such descriptions could be considered only in special cases, e.g. in a necessity of streamlined descriptions of multiple new species in megadiverse, poorly studied taxa with strong record on the informativeness of DNA barcodes (deep divergences) and correlated external features shown on rich illustrative material.

  • Mandatory: Rich illustrative material (photos, drawings) of the voucher (type) specimens and morphological details important for the identification of the taxon under study (microCT or others). 

  • Mandatory: The reason to use mostly DNA characters for diagnosing and descriptions of new species should be justified in the Materials and Methods section of the paper. 

  • Mandatory: Explain how the new species differentiates from the previous or related species described in the same paper.

  • Mandatory: Etymology and differential diagnoses are mandatory in "DNA-based" species descriptions as well.

  • Strongly recommended: Morphological descriptions are to be included in "DNA-based" descriptions as well, whenever possible. Exceptions from this rule should be justified in the Material and Methods section of the paper.

  • Strongly recommended: DNA sequences of relevant existing name-bearing types, so that it is clear to which clade(s) the existing name(s) belong. If such sequences are not available, it is mandatory to explain how previous names are applied in the manuscript. 

• DNA sequences. 

  • Mandatory: When new sequences are reported, their GenBank/EMBL/DDBJ accession number(s) should be included in the manuscript.

  • Mandatory: In all taxa where using DNA sequences is accepted as a norm; strongly recommended in all other taxa. 

  • Strongly recommended: Use the GenSeq terms if DNA sequences of type material are reported in the manuscript (see section Sequence data below and also Chakrabarty P, Warren M, Page L (2013) GenSeq: An updated nomenclature and ranking for genetic sequences from type and non-type sources. ZooKeys 346: 29-41). https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.346.5753). See 

  • Strongly recommended: Whenever possible, DNA sequences should be made available to the editors and reviewers. 

• Etymology. Mandatory: Including Latin form for species-group epithets (adjective, noun in apposition, noun in genitive case, or "random sequence of letters" not needing accord with generic gender) and gender for genus-group names.

• Data on biology, ecology, and biotic interactions. 

  • Mandatory: Where such data are available. 

  • Strongly recommended:  Illustrative materials (habitat photos, videos of species’ behavior, etc.).  

• Introduction, discussion and conclusions texts or sections. Mandatory.

Manuscripts containing novel amino acid sequences (e.g. primer sequences) will only be accepted if they carry an International Nucleotide Sequence Databases (INSD) accession number from the European Biology Laboratory (EMBL), GenBank Data Libraries (GenBank) or DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ). We strongly recommend that authors include institutional catalog numbers for specimens preserved in collections, and information identifying sequences that are derived from type specimens (see below) when they deposit data in genetic databanks. A summary table with the INSD accession [catalog] numbers should be included in either Materials and Methods or Data Resources section of the paper. If specimens were not vouchered (tissued specimens should be vouchered whenever possible!), collection locality data and possibly photographs of tissued specimens must be provided. A nomenclature for genetic sequences for types and confidently identified nontype specimens has been proposed by Chakrabarty et al. (2013); a sequence from a holotype is identified as genseq-1, one from a paratype is identified as genseq-2, one from a topotype is genseq-3, etc. The genetic marker(s) used should also be incorporated into the nomenclature (e.g. genseq-2 COI).

Examples

Table 1. Ranking Sequence Reliability. Ranking of source materials of genetic sequences based on reliability of taxonomic identification. Examples of the source material are listed in the third column with the last column providing the corresponding GenSeq nomenclature (after Chakrabarty et al. (2013)).

Reliability Ranking Source Materials Examples Corresponding GenSeq Nomenclature

Highest

1st Primary Types Holotype, Lectotype, Syntype, Isosyntype, Neotype, Isotype genseq-1

2nd Secondary Types Paratype, Paralectotypes, etc. genseq-2

3rd Topotypes (vouchered), or non-type specimens listed in original description or redescription Topotype, Non-type specimen listed in original description or redescription genseq-3

4th Collections-vouchered non-types (not from original description or redescription) Vouchered specimen genseq-4

5th Photo voucher only No specimen voucher but photo voucher available genseq-5

Lowest No voucher Non-vouchered No classification

Table 2. Example Reporting Table. Examples of how links between genetic sequences and vouchers in institutional collections could be displayed as a table in publications reporting new sequences.

Species Specimen Catalog # GenBank # GenSeq Nomenclature

COI ND1

Typhleotris mararybe LSUMZ 13636 (holotype) HM590594

HM590606

genseq-1 COI, ND1

Paretroplus tsimoly AMNH 229558 (paratype) JZ590596

NA genseq-2 COI

Nandopsis haitiensis UMMZ 236321 (topotype) BK590595

BK590607

genseq-3 COI, ND1

Halieutichthys intermedius FMNH 96353 (non-type specimen voucher) AY722169

AY722306

genseq-4 COI, ND1

Equulites absconditus NMNH 12345PV2 (photo voucher) NA BG34621

genseq-5 ND1

This journal will publish papers that strictly adhere to the rules of the last edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and its amendment. Authors are also advised to follow all recommendations of the Code and to consult the guidelines below prior to submitting the manuscript.

General: Each first mentioning of an animal species name within the text must be provided with author(s)' name(s). Year of publication of an animal species should be given in taxonomic revisions with quotation of the work providing the original species’ description in the list of references.

New names: When new taxonomic acts are proposed, they should be explicitly indicated as being new by adding the respective abbreviation after the taxon name i.e., sp. nov., comb. nov., nomen nov. Authors of newly described taxa should be given any time the taxon is mentioned, if different from the publication authors.

Examples:

• Genus X-us Smith, new genus (author(s) of the publication and authority (-ies) of the taxon is/are identical);

• X-us albus Jones & Peters, new species (the publication is authored by persons different in composition or combination from the authority (-ies) of the taxon itself, e.g. Smith, Jones & Peters or Peters & Jones).

We highly recommend that authors of new species are also included as co-authors of the work where the taxa are described. If the authors of the work do not want to include the authors of the taxonomic name then to be absolutely certain that the authority for the name is unequivocal there should be a statement in the work saying that these authors (of the name) are responsible for making the name available under the code (Article 50.1.2, etc.) i.e. they are responsible for coining the name and for satisfying all other criteria for availability.

New family-group names: Although all family group names are derived/based on their type genus, the type genus is to be compulsorily designated in any description of a family-group name published after 31st December 1999 (Article 16.2). It is not sufficient that the type genus is mentioned as belonging to the new family-group name; it must be stated that this is the type genus. We recommend a single type line as: Type-genus: Musca Linnaeus, 1758.

New genus-group names: The origin ("etymology", or "derivatio nominum") of name and its gender should be indicated. The type-species and the character of the proposed taxonomic act should be specified for new genus-group names. The type species name should be given in its original combination with an author and year. If the type species is now considered a junior synonym there need to be a clear mention of that. The fixation type should derive from the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (see Articles 68 & 69; original designation, monotypy, absolute tautonymy, Linnaean tautonymy, subsequent monotypy, subsequent designation).

Example:

• Sympycnus Loew

Type-species: Porphyrops annulipes Meigen, 1824 by subsequent designation of Coquillett (1910: 610) =pulicarius Fallen, 1823.

New species-group names: According to the ICZN Art. 11.9, but also Art. 11.3 the origin "etymology", or "derivatio nominum") new species-group names should be supplemented by information on whether the epithet is an 1) adjective or participle in the nominative singular; 2) noun in the nominative singular; 3) a noun in the genitive case; 4) an adjective used a substative in the genitive case; or 5) an arbitrary combination of letters (ICZN Art. 11.3). For species-group names, there are two separate statements of type information that are needed:

• the statement of species’ type locality – that is the exact place whence the primary type origins, including exact collecting dataplace with geographical coordinates, geographical or political unit (Area/ District/ State) and country;also, if possible, supplementary locality information should be included – habitat type, method of collecting, date, collector’s names, host name (for parasites), etc.

• there should be a separate statement about the type specimen, exact quotation of its original label, condition of specimen (dry pinned, in alcohol, slide, fossil, etc.) and repository (organization’s name and city).

Examples:

For a new species:

• Type locality: USA, Virginia: Fairfax County, Kingstowne, 38°46'N, 77°07'W, broad-leaf forest, under bark, 10 July 2000, J. Smith leg.

• Type specimen: Holotype male, pinned, with genitalia in a separate microvial. Original label: "USA, VA, Fairfax, Kingstowne, 38°46'N, 77°07'W, 12 Oct 2003, BJ & FC Thompson" "USNM ENT 00033805" [Code 49 barcode], "HOLOTYPE / Xylota / x-us / Thompson [red handwritten label].

For a previously described species:

Lectotype male, pinned … [details] here designated to fix the concept of X-us albus Jones and to ensure the universal and consistent interpretation of the same. Or … [details then] by designation of Smith (1976: 999).

Previously published names: For a previously published name, please provide the year of description. Also use the parentheses convention for subsequent new combinations.

[Etymology]

Authors of new species name should state exactly what the epithet is in terms of the ICZN, as outlined in Article 11.9.1.1 to 11.9.1.4 as well as 11.3. A name may be a word in or derived from Latin, Greek or any other language (even one with no alphabet), or be formed from such a word. In short, a name can be declared as arbitrary combination (the best solution) or must be or be treated as:

I) a word of two or more letters, or a compound word, and, if a Latin or latinized word must be, or be treated as:

1. an adjective or participle in the nominative singular (as in Echinus esculentus, Felis marmorata, Seioptera vibrans), or

2. a noun in the nominative singular standing in apposition to the generic name (as in Struthio camelus, Cercopithecus diana), or

3. a noun in the genitive case (e.g. rosae, sturionis, thermopylarum, galliae, sanctipauli, sanctaehelenae, cuvieri, merianae, smithorum), or

4. an adjective used as a substantive in the genitive case and derived from the specific name of an organism with which the animal in question is associated (as in Lernaeocera lusci, a copepod parasitic on Trisopterus luscus).

II) An adjectival species-group name proposed in Latin text but written otherwise than in the nominative singular because of the requirements of Latin grammar is available provided that it meets the other requirements of availability, but it is to be corrected to the nominative singular if necessary.

Arranging sections within species treatments (sections in square brackets are requested for new descriptions only!):

[Name]

[Material]

    - [Type material]

    - Other material

[Diagnosis]

[Description]

[Etymology]

Distribution

Ecology (including phenology)

Conservation status (optional, we encourage authors to follow the IUCN categories and criteria, please see http://www.iucnredlist.org/static/categories_criteria_3_1#critical))

Discussion (optional, but very desirable)