New bat of the genus Lophostoma (Phyllostomidae: Phyllostominae) from northwestern Ecuador

Resumen

Occasional Paper number 232 describes a new species in the genus Lophostoma from the lowlands of northwestern Ecuador, The authors used classical morphology, DNA sequence data and karyology to conclude that a species level description is appropriate.The application of the Genetic Species Concept is pivotal to their conclusions.As is the case with nearly all species descriptions, some questions remain to be answered that are critical to the story.In this case, there is a taxon, Lophostoma silvicolum occidentalism described from the dry versant of Northwestern Peru for which there are no chromosomal nor DNA sequence data, Duane Schlitter (Texas Cooperative Wildlife Collection; Texas A&M University) was kind enough to permit a biopsy of two specimens of L. s. occidentalis but the authors were unable to generate reproducible sequence data and provide an estimate of genetic relatedness to the new species proposed herein.The significance of the amount of work that has gone into this description is an attempt to maintain high standards for the introduction of a new species name.Alternatively, the process of documenting the world's biodiversity is slowed because of the amount of work required to describe new species.At the current rate of new descriptions, is there sufficient time to describe, in a timely manner, all the undescribed species of vertebrates (much less the millions of undescribed invertebrates and other forms of life)'?What is the significance of introducing a new name into the mammalogical literature?As any other type of scientific hypothesis, describing a new name is a taxonomic hypothesis that may be confirmed or rejected by further studies.If the taxon proves to be a "biological species" in the judgment of the scientific community then this species becomes one more component of the studies and inventories involving evolution, systematics, ecology, conservation, behavior and related fields.On the other hand, if the described taxon is judged not to be a "biological species", then it becomes a junior synonym in books full of junior synonyms.At any rate, a new name brings focus on certain populations, phylogroups or operational taxonomic units that scientists can interrogate concerning its proper systematic level and uniqueness.Without introducing a new name, the level of attention brought to this possible "biological species" would certainly be less than if a new name is described.We often ask of our students and colleagues "what percentage of descriptions would need ultimately to be judged biological species to make you comfortable in describing ten new species level taxa?Ten? Seven?Five?Three?One?" The answer to this question lies in the value to science and society of documenting a previously unrecognized species as opposed to the cost to science of introducing a junior synonym.Although we do not purport to know the answer to this balance, we do think that it is important to the science of Systematics to discuss the relationship between these two alternatives as well as the labor intensity associated with tire introduction of new names.Finally, one of the reviewers, Don Wilson, has requested that for multiauthored papers introducing a new name, one or two individuals be designated as the authors of the description.Don points out that citing complicated author lines as a source of a name is becoming a significant problem in taxonomic reviews and species lists such as "Mammal Species of the World".Don's solution is an extension of the history of taxonomy where multiple authors might describe different taxa in books such as Long's "Account of an Expedition from Pittsburg to the Rocky Mountains."In such a book, descriptions as that of Myotis subulatus (Say 1823), were clearly the work of Say, the biologist, and not of Long, the leadei of the expedition.The situation is much more complex now that species descriptions involve genetics, morphology, chromosomes and other data sets and the title of the paper is most likely some variation of A New Species of X.ftIf all of the authors really belong on the author line and if all of them contributed something that is an important part of the diagnosis of the new' species, is it appropriate to have the description accredited two one or two individuals?Even when it is true that it is unfair to restrict the number of authors if several have been involved in the description in several ways, it is also true that many papers today have author lines where one to three of the six or ten authors involved have done most of the work.Although these author lines are sometimes justified for a variety of reasons, it is evident that a description oi a new taxon is a different kind of credit.Only individuals who make a significant contribution to the discovery of a new species should be authors of the resulting scientific name.This is another issue that needs to be debated and discussed by those who want to be a part of the cataloguing of the world's biodiversity.It is our opinion that there are many currently unrecognized species of mammals and it is in the best interest of science and conservation that the process be efficient and expeditious in cataloging these new species level taxa. RJBFront cover: Holotypes of Lophostoma silvicolum occidentalis (left) from northwestern Peru and the new species of Lophostoma (right) from northwestern Ecuador in both dorsal and ventral views.