Regg Cato Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 I was thinking about this around the campfire back at the beginning of the month. I recall Edward Cope published his first paper when he was 15, but I don't recall if he actually named a new species or just described one already known. Is anyone aware of who was the youngest person to name a new species of fossil animal and how old they were at the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichW9090 Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 (edited) No, I don't know. But you, Regg Cato, should be pleased to know that your post is the first result listed for a Google search "youngest person to name a new species". Edited August 31, 2013 by RichW9090 The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Are we considering fossil species, or extant as well? "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichW9090 Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Both, I would think....... The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regg Cato Posted September 1, 2013 Author Share Posted September 1, 2013 Sorry yes I should have specified, I was referring to fossil species (though extant would be interesting to know as well). No, I don't know. But you, Regg Cato, should be pleased to know that your post is the first result listed for a Google search "youngest person to name a new species". haha that's both cool and entirely unhelpful at the same time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichW9090 Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 (edited) Cope was 23 when he named his first species of living fish. Cope was 29 when he named his first fossil fish. Cope was 19 when he named his first species of salamanders. Cope was 25 when he named his first fossil amphibian (and it was his first paper on paleontology of any kind). Cope was 19 when he named his first living reptile. Cope was 44 when he described his first fossil mammal. So Cope first published a living new species when he was 19, and his first fossil species when he was 25. Edited September 1, 2013 by RichW9090 The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regg Cato Posted September 1, 2013 Author Share Posted September 1, 2013 I see...very interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Carl Linnaeus published his first edition of Systema Naturae when he was 28. Out of the running for youngest namer-of-species, but still a remarkable feat! "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgrilusHunter Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Didn't Tyler Lyson get started pretty young? He co-authored some softshell turtle descriptions several years back. I'm not sure how old he was at the time though. "They ... savoured the strange warm glow of being much more ignorant than ordinary people, who were only ignorant of ordinary things." -- Terry Pratchett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painshill Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 (edited) In November 2008 a little girl called Daisy Morris was out for a walk along one of the beaches on the isle of Wight in the UK with her parents when they spotted some fossil bones that had weathered out of the cliffs and were laying on top of the scree slope. These turned out to be from a new species of pterosaur (a small one about the size of a large crow). Of course Daisy was too young to publish (that was left to Darren Naish, Martin and Gareth dyke) but it was named in the paper of March of this year as Vectidraco daisymorrisae in her honour as the finder. Daisy was 4 years old (approaching 5) at the time of the find and so I would presume 9 years old now and at the time of publication. That surely must be the youngest. Yes, it’s stretching the rules a bit but hey…. She’s only 9 and deserves the credit. New genus as well as new species. If she hadn’t spotted them, the next tide would have washed the bones out to sea. Edited September 1, 2013 by painshill Roger I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew);Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who [Rudyard Kipling] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regg Cato Posted September 1, 2013 Author Share Posted September 1, 2013 Hm...that's quite a find (I didn't even get started that young lol)...but I'm strictly interested in youngest person to name (or rename) and publish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painshill Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 I would guess it’s Dr Scott Hocknull in Australia. He began his palaeontological career in 1994 at the age of 16 and published his first paper that year describing the new freshwater bivalve species Protovirgus clellandi (now Megalovirgus clellandi). By the age of 22 he had been appointed Curator of Geosciences at the Queensland Museum and later won the “Young Australian of the Year” award. I also recalled a comment from Dr Peter Hosner, on his first-time publication last month as lead author of a team of young ornithologists who discovered a new (non-fossil) bird species in Peru. Responding to a question about what was the most difficult part of describing a new species he replied: “It's the associated paperwork. It's endless.” Roger I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew);Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who [Rudyard Kipling] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichW9090 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 Not sure what Hosner meant by that comment - all one has to do is to publish the name and a proper description, accompanied by an adequate illustration, in a journal which qualifies under the rules of the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature. Rich The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painshill Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 Not sure what Hosner meant by that comment - all one has to do is to publish the name and a proper description, accompanied by an adequate illustration, in a journal which qualifies under the rules of the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature. Rich "Responding to a question about what was the most difficult part of describing a new species..." I think it's also rather more complex for living species which may only have subtle anatomical differences to existing ones. These days you generally have to involve experts in a wider set of disciplines (such as DNA testing) to pass the bench-mark and all of that has to go for peer review. Roger I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew);Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who [Rudyard Kipling] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichW9090 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 It is still not all that difficult - there is no "paperwork" to fill out. This is easily demonstrated by the number of appeals to the ICZN asking names to be set aside, etc. The guy who a few years ago revised the whole of the North American Crotalidae without ever examining any specimens, coining a bunch of new names, and publishing it in his own journal of which he is the owner and editor comes to mind as an example....... Remember, names aren't established by some vote of modern scientists. They are established by the simple act of publishing them, as long as the criteria set forth by the ICZN are met - even if every reputable scientist in the world disagrees, the names are still valid, until properly revised (in which case they still stand in the record as junior subjective synonyms), or suppressed by an appeal to the ICZN - and that does take considerable paperwork! The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painshill Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 It is still not all that difficult - there is no "paperwork" to fill out. This is easily demonstrated by the number of appeals to the ICZN asking names to be set aside, etc. The guy who a few years ago revised the whole of the North American Crotalidae without ever examining any specimens, coining a bunch of new names, and publishing it in his own journal of which he is the owner and editor comes to mind as an example....... Remember, names aren't established by some vote of modern scientists. They are established by the simple act of publishing them, as long as the criteria set forth by the ICZN are met - even if every reputable scientist in the world disagrees, the names are still valid, until properly revised (in which case they still stand in the record as junior subjective synonyms), or suppressed by an appeal to the ICZN - and that does take considerable paperwork! Yeah, I get that. He's not talking about form-filling or naming protocol. As a young first-time author he was simply describing the challenge presented by gathering the research evidence, the liaison with other researchers and the consequent volume of correspondence! It took him almost 5 years from discovery to publication in a reputable journal with proper peer review. Roger I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew);Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who [Rudyard Kipling] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichW9090 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 Proper research does take time and effort. Would that every "scientist" who is publishing new names would take the responsibility as seriously! The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgrilusHunter Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 "Responding to a question about what was the most difficult part of describing a new species..." I think it's also rather more complex for living species which may only have subtle anatomical differences to existing ones. These days you generally have to involve experts in a wider set of disciplines (such as DNA testing) to pass the bench-mark and all of that has to go for peer review. Hi painshill, No, it is not more complex and it doesn't require loads of paperwork, or even molecular analysis. Molecular work is becoming more common in conjucture with classical taxonomy but it is certainly not required for a species description. I've seen it used most on species that are morphologically similar. For the most part though, the description of a new species still falls within the realm of a taxonomic expert not a geneticist. "They ... savoured the strange warm glow of being much more ignorant than ordinary people, who were only ignorant of ordinary things." -- Terry Pratchett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 Naming's easy; the research needed to present a case that will stand up is a bigger deal. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painshill Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 Hi painshill, No, it is not more complex and it doesn't require loads of paperwork, or even molecular analysis. Molecular work is becoming more common in conjucture with classical taxonomy but it is certainly not required for a species description. I've seen it used most on species that are morphologically similar. For the most part though, the description of a new species still falls within the realm of a taxonomic expert not a geneticist. This quote from Hosner: "In one archive, I found that birders had recorded the same unusual vocalizations [ie the bird's "song"], but on a different road about five kilometers away from our study site," he said. "They had tentatively identified the recordings as a different species of tapaculo—a species which occurs in the same area. I also sequenced DNA and compared the sequences to known species. None matched. The appearance of the specimens, their unusual song and unique DNA convinced us it was new species—and I started writing up the description." Roger I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew);Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who [Rudyard Kipling] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgrilusHunter Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 This quote from Hosner: "In one archive, I found that birders had recorded the same unusual vocalizations [ie the bird's "song"], but on a different road about five kilometers away from our study site," he said. "They had tentatively identified the recordings as a different species of tapaculo—a species which occurs in the same area. I also sequenced DNA and compared the sequences to known species. None matched. The appearance of the specimens, their unusual song and unique DNA convinced us it was new species—and I started writing up the description." Hi painshill, I'm not sure I see the point of this quote. Because they used molecular work in the description of this bird species doesn't mean it is required to describe a new species. There are many new species of insect described every year and molecular data is certainly not presented along with every description. Now, if you are arguing that it should be then I whole heartedly agree with you. "They ... savoured the strange warm glow of being much more ignorant than ordinary people, who were only ignorant of ordinary things." -- Terry Pratchett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painshill Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 (edited) The point was that... oh never mind. Tired of this now. Edited September 2, 2013 by painshill Roger I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew);Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who [Rudyard Kipling] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgrilusHunter Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 Sorry to hear that. "They ... savoured the strange warm glow of being much more ignorant than ordinary people, who were only ignorant of ordinary things." -- Terry Pratchett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichW9090 Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 By the way, I've tried to find a paper published by Cope when he was 15, but nothing like that shows up - and his official biography, by Henry Fairfield Osborn, "Cope: Master Naturalist" shows nothing earlier than 1859, when he was 19. Rich The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regg Cato Posted September 3, 2013 Author Share Posted September 3, 2013 By the way, I've tried to find a paper published by Cope when he was 15, but nothing like that shows up - and his official biography, by Henry Fairfield Osborn, "Cope: Master Naturalist" shows nothing earlier than 1859, when he was 19. Rich Hm, ok, maybe I'm not remembering right then, maybe it was 19. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts