Getting A New Species Described

[JohnJ]

Many of you have already read about my tiny Bathysalenia (jacksoni). Hopefully within the next couple of years, I'll be able to have this new species of echinoid officially 'described' and published (I've been told this is a fast turnaround). In the meantime, finding someone doing work in this field and finding someone that has the time to do it has been an education. However, before any echies leave my hands, I would like to find out what your experiences have been in this "new species" process. Are there things you would suggest to do or avoid? Got my notepad ready....thanks.

[Nicholas]

My biggest suggestion is to find someone trying to get their Ph.D/Masters degree in that specific field of Paleontology... Hopefully they may take it to use as their Thesis and work on getting it described.

[Guest Smilodon]

Many of you have already read about my tiny Bathysalenia (jacksoni). Hopefully within the next couple of years, I'll be able to have this new species of echinoid officially 'described' and published (I've been told this is a fast turnaround). In the meantime, finding someone doing work in this field and finding someone that has the time to do it has been an education. However, before any echies leave my hands, I would like to find out what your experiences have been in this "new species" process. Are there things you would suggest to do or avoid? Got my notepad ready....thanks.

John,

I know of two people who had to wait more than 30 years to have their's actually published. One was a turtle and one was a dwarf dugong. One of the same people has been waiting more than 10 years for a new species of bird from a different academician. I, myself, have been waiting 6 years for "my" lizard.

It just totally depends on the person who is describing it and their situation.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Smilodon

[PaleoPutz]

I am an acquaintance of the guy who found the fossil in this article. He rode with me on a trip. The proces for him started in 2005 and is just now coming around. The hardest part for him was getting the initial contact.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090126_11_A1_Robert751029&archive=yes

[erose]

John,

I know of two people who had to wait more than 30 years to have their's actually published. One was a turtle and one was a dwarf dugong. One of the same people has been waiting more than 10 years for a new species of bird from a different academician. I, myself, have been waiting 6 years for "my" lizard.

It just totally depends on the person who is describing it and their situation.

I wonder what the difference between verts and inverts would be? Verts certainly could be much more to compare & describe versus an echinoid. Seems you need to contact as many Echinoid scientists as you can and see who is most interested. Maybe try Dr. James Sprinkle at UT here in Austin. He is always very interested when any of us brings any sort of echinoderm to a meeting (PSoA) although his specialty is early crinoids and such.

And, I'm sure, you do realize you have to give at least one of them (best one!) up for the type specimen? That has to be held in a recognized museum or university collection in order to be available for future comparison and study.

Hope you have good luck with this. I think it would be the goal of many of us to find something new to science and see it recognized, described and named.

[tracer]

try to look at the situation from the possible frame of reference of the academic. there is no downside to them of avid amateurs bringing them all manner of potentially rare things that they can use to make themselves a rock star (pun intended) in their field, when and if they ever get around to doing the work of describing them.

i think if i were going to go find rare stuff and want it memorialized i'd research how to do all the describing myself, find a professor who wasn't already plagiarizing all his grad students' work, give him the fossil and the camera-ready publication material, and tell him, "all that's missing is your name". seems like you'd get a lot of species named after you that way.

hmm, sounded cynical.

tracer's cat - (rowr)

[Terry Dactyll]

Tracer..... lolol....

[Acryzona]

JohnJ,

I agree with tracer. A paper describing a new species follows a standard formula. Literature review, locality information, description and compare/contrast with other species in the genus. Using other papers as a guide, you could draft your own paper then give that to a willing professional to co-author. It's easier to edit a written paper than to write one from scratch, so it's less work for the professional and shows desire to get it published on your part.

A place like PRI (Paleontological Research Institute) could probably hold the type specimen and give you a reference number.

Congratulations on the new species! I hope some day I'll have one to name too.

Acryzona

[jkfoam]

JohnJ, tracer, Acryzona,

Why write a paper describing your new species for someone else to sign. Sign it yourself and submit it for publication under your own name. There is no rule that says you can't. There is no list of approved authors. Other amateurs have written up new species and been published. Most notable to me is Chris L. Garvie who wrote a paper published in the "Bulletins of American Paleontology" where he described over 100 new species in his work with the Texas Eocene, Marquez Member of the Reklaw Formation.

Now if I were to attempt to have published a find of my own I think I would seek to collaborate with a Paleo Professor or a Post-Doc Paleo student to guide me and critique my work. Of course I would make my collaborator a co-author.

JKFoam

[Xiphactinus]

My new genus/species name came pretty fast. I was a student at U. of Kansas and found a large insect wing on my first hunt of a Pennsylvanian exposure about 8 miles from campus. Took it into the paleo dept. and got a "Woah!" Donated the fossil in spring. That fall, got a letter from Frank Carpenter from Harvard. (THE insect fossil guy.) He was wrapping up the insect volume of the Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology and my find messed him up because he had just received it from KU and it was really different. He wanted to fast-track the process because, not to be morbid, but he was about 90 and wanted to finish the treatise before he passed. And he also had a soft spot for Kansas insects because that's where he started. He received comparison specimens from Field Museum and from London, studied and wrote the paper and published within about 18 months. He contacted me a couple of times along the way for more locality info. It was a neat experience, esp since I had a brush with one of the great fossil professors of all time.

[Acryzona]

Jkfoam,

While there is no rule about self-publishing, from my personal experience it can be a hard and possibly long road to publication. That's why I suggested drafting the paper and letting a professional push it through to publication. In return, you offer them co-authorship. In academic circles, there is often a "publish or perish" mentality so while the paper may not be earth shattering, it provides an easy way for a professional to add to their "volume" of published works.

Acryzona

[Bill]

I collected and donated a Biting Snipefly wing in 92/93, it was described in 2003. I found out in Feb 2008, after making enquiries as to whether it had been described yet.

[Boesse]

OK, advice time from someone within academia - I have just gotten my first paper accepted for publication (and all my revisions completed), and it's not an easy process. For one, to even begin a contribution to the literature, you need to already possess an encyclopedic knowledge of the body of literature you'll be contributing to (and access to that literature, which can be very expensive unless you're an academic and can use interlibrary loan for free). Second, you need encyclopedic knowledge of the fossil taxa you're studying. This is different than looking at pictures; I'm talking about spending lots of time rummaging through museum collections and looking at other type specimens, other important specimens, so on and so forth. This also means you need to know every anatomical feature of each of these different taxa, and how they differ or are similar to your specimen(s). Third, you need to have a firm grasp on the anatomical terminology of the group you're studying; otherwise, you can't communicate anything.

There are many within academia who would be very skeptical of someone without a formal background in paleontology writing and publishing a paper on anything; I'm not saying its 'right', I'm just describing the playing field for you.

Just to give an example, my first paper I started writing, based on my undergraduate research - I started writing it in 2006, and I'm still refining it (because there were so many inherent problems with it). The point I started at is more or less the same point you're at now. However, take for example a paper I started writing about 14 months ago, after I already knew how to write and had spent an inordinate amount of time reading the relevant literature and time in museum collections. After about 6 months, I submitted the paper for the review process, and heard back about 6 months later (in December) and a month after that (yesterday) resubmitted the revised version of the manuscript (which was more or less about 30 double spaced pages, with a half dozen figures). And that was relatively short in terms of hatching the project to completion.

Bobby

[Boesse]

Another example. About four years ago RJB let me cart off this big ###### piece of concretion with two fur seal jaws stuck in it. I knew from photos it was important, but my writing skill at the time sucked so much that the drafts I put together were just horrible. Anyway, I'm just now getting to a point where I can put together a decent manuscript regarding all this cool material he collected; hopefully I'll be able to get it in working order by the end of May this spring. The paper thus far is entitled "New records of the fur seal Callorhinus (Mammalia:Otariidae) from the Plio-Pleistocene Rio Dell Formation of Northern California".

Bobby

[tracer]

i'm sure academics work very hard. but they should advise potential donors of material that if they are donating for the ego stroke and bragging rights of having it published and/or named after them, that it might never happen, so they won't hold their breath. you don't want donors feeling slighted because hey, they might find something even rarer next time, and keep it.

[siteseer]

In the meantime, finding someone doing work in this field and finding someone that has the time to do it has been an education. However, before any echies leave my hands, I would like to find out what your experiences have been in this "new species" process. Are there things you would suggest to do or avoid? Got my notepad ready....thanks.

JohnJ,

As you've experienced and as you've read from the other members here, you need to identify your target group of researchers. I don't know how many people are actively researching Late Cretaceous echinoids from Texas and I don't know the politics involved and I don't know whom among that group isn't already really busy teaching with side projects (describing taxa, reviewing faunas, etc.) of his own at different stages of completeness. You cannot expect anyone to drop everything he's already doing because of your find, even if it is new to science. He might have 10-15 new species of his own to write up when he gets around to it.

I bring up the politics because paleontologists can be very territorial. The "old guard guy" who has "claimed" the fossil echinoid faunas of Texas as his territory might not think your one new species ranks high enough on his priority list to bother with in the foreseeable future. Other paleontologists would be reluctant to step on his toes so your species might not get named in the next twenty or more years. If that territory is unclaimed, then you can try finding either someone nearing retirement who has worked on Late Cretaceous echinoids from elsewhere in the U.S. and who might do one last write-up or include it in his magnum opus (as with Frank Carpenter) or get in touch with a "new kid," a grad student working on an advanced degree who might be as excited as you are about your find (as with Boesse).

I know of at least one shark tooth form that was recognized as new at least as far back as the early 60's and it remains undescribed even after becoming well-known among amateurs and professionals. It's just something no one has gotten around to fully researching because it has been considered a lesser priority to a string of paleontologists working that territory since that time.

[tracer]

"I know of at least one shark tooth form that was recognized as new at least as far back as the early 60's and it remains undescribed even after becoming well-known among amateurs and professionals. It's just something no one has gotten around to fully researching because it has been considered a lesser priority to a string of paleontologists working that territory since that time."

hmm, i thought all shark teeth were undescribed species, and precursors of megs, but not otodus.

sowwy

[Cole]

Jkfoam,

While there is no rule about self-publishing, from my personal experience it can be a hard and possibly long road to publication. That's why I suggested drafting the paper and letting a professional push it through to publication. In return, you offer them co-authorship. In academic circles, there is often a "publish or perish" mentality so while the paper may not be earth shattering, it provides an easy way for a professional to add to their "volume" of published works.

Acryzona

Definately a long road until publication. I Published an article in TFH Magazine last August. I know tropical fish are a far cry from fossils, but the road you would take to publication is similar. I worked for over a year with a Cambridge University graduate who helped me to co-author my first submittal (The Truth, Controversy and Debate of the Electric Blue Rocio octofasciata). I waited another 9 months before finally they wrote back and asked me to revise. My paper was too long, and needed to be cut by over 6000 words. I scratched my head for about 6 months trying to widdle it down without dropping too much important information. In the end I decided to drop the co-authorship and start from scratch on my own work. After re-submitting it it took them 6 months to review before they decided they would publish. After getting the incorporated photos over to them I waited another 8 months before it finally got published worldwide...then it took another 3 months to get paid.

It is a lot of work, and can sometimes be quite daunting. If you stick with it however, I promise it will be a very rewarding experience.

I do highly suggest letting as many professionals as possible in the field look over the paper as they will guide you through what is acceptable and unacceptable as far as scientific publications are concerned. It is critical to be as unbiased and non-opinionated as possible, relying soley on the facts. In the end though, if you go it alone it will be far more rewarding to you in the end.

[ashcraft]

My $.75 worth as somebody who is also working to get an article published. Remember, you do not get extra pay for publishing. In academic circles, many professors publish many papers until tenure is achieved, then they slack off considerably. The "publish or perish" line is only true until you are immortal (tenure), then why work so hard? It doesn't bring in extra money, and it generally requires a lot of time outside of normal business hours.

Technical writing is not an easy thing, but it can be done by an amateur. If you are up to the challenge, there are many publications that you could get published in, with less stringent critical eyes. Journal of Paleontology is a good goal, but often out of reach.

Shooting for the Journal of Entomology myself,

Brent Ashcraft

[tracer]

Shooting for the Journal of Entomology myself,

bet you can get in if you bug them enough.

[Uncle Siphuncle]

Sometimes its not a case of hunting for someone to describe your find....sometimes there are researchers ready to strip it out of your hand before you even get a chance to look at it! In my case there was already someone writing a paper on Permian reptiles from the collecting site so things got started without much effort from my end. I asked for the species name, 2 casts (one to display and one to throw in my safe), and a copy of the paper.

I also got the specimen appraised by a dealer for charitable donation writeoff before making the donation. Also keep in mind that it may be advisable to have it in your possession for over a year so that the IRS cannot diminish the writeoff with short term capital gains tax(I was told this by an attorney-collector-friend who defends taxpayers in trouble with the IRS). Why leave money on the table I say, especially when its just sitting there waiting to reduce your tax liability legally.

[JohnJ]

Thanks for some well-rounded replies. Granted, the challenges are different depending on the type of subject one is trying to get described. If anyone else has direct experience in the process, please share your thoughts. It helps more of us than just me.