# History of Science **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 26, 2003, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/history-of-science/184605 "2003-06-26T20:12:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sauroposeidon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@Sauroposeidon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauroposeidon)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/history-of-science/184605/1 "2003-06-26T20:12:04Z")
Who was the youngest person to publish the formal scientific name of a newly discovered species? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/history-of-science/184605/2 "2003-06-26T22:08:08Z")
I don’t know. The thing to remember is that the actual formal naming is done by formal naming organsiations, usually museums, herbariums etc. The person discovering a new species, even if they know it is clearly a new species, have to send it to one of these organisations to get it formally named. Since working for such an organsiation requires formal tertiary quaifications, at leats today, I’d suspect that no one under the age of 18 has ever done such a thing. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/history-of-science/184605/3 "2003-06-26T22:54:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blake \* > \*\*I don’t know. The thing to remember is that the actual formal naming is done by formal naming organsiations, usually museums, herbariums etc. The person discovering a new species, even if they know it is clearly a new species, have to send it to one of these organisations to get it formally named. Since working for such an organsiation requires formal tertiary quaifications, at leats today, I’d suspect that no one under the age of 18 has ever done such a thing. \*\* This is completely incorrect. Until recent revisions to the Zoological Code of Nomenclature, really the only requirement was that someone (anyone, really) had to publish a binomial name (usually latinized) for a species, and give the characteristics by which that species can be distinguished from other related species. Valid scientific names have been published by complete amateurs; valid scientific names have been published in newspapers. ---
**Author:** ![kunoichi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4da419/32.png) [@kunoichi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kunoichi)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/history-of-science/184605/4 "2003-06-26T22:59:00Z")
Yeah, but just because it’s “published” (I think you actually mean printed), especially in something as scientifically disrespectable as the newspaper, doesn’t mean that any respectable scientists would actually accept and use it. Of course, if the name is published (in the peer-reviewed journal sense) in a scientific paper, that may be a different story. ---
**Author:** ![kunoichi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4da419/32.png) [@kunoichi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kunoichi)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/history-of-science/184605/5 "2003-06-26T23:03:48Z")
[Check this out](http://www.iczn.org/iczn.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/history-of-science/184605/6 "2003-06-26T23:19:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kunoichi \* > \*\*Yeah, but just because it’s “published” (I think you actually mean printed), especially in something as scientifically disrespectable as the newspaper, doesn’t mean that any respectable scientists would actually accept and use it. > > Of course, if the name is published (in the peer-reviewed journal sense) in a scientific paper, that may be a different story. \*\* **kuniochi** , I am a professional biologist and quite familiar with the ICZN. I work with taxonomists all the time. (And no, I don’t mean “printed,” I mean “published” in the sense of publicly disseminated.) It doesn’t matter _where_ a name is published, whether magazine, newspaper, or scientific journal, as long as it is valid - that is, has the binomial format and gives distinguishing characteristics of a taxon. And whether or not a name is generally ‘accepted’ is an entirely different issue from whether or not it is valid (in the techical sense). A name that has been validly published cannot be used again, even if it turns out the description itself is inaccurate. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/history-of-science/184605/7 "2003-06-26T23:33:32Z")
From [here;](http://academic.regis.edu/mghedott/bl404/bl404pdf/bl404hnd03-02.pdf) > [@](#): > > Each taxonomic name must be appropriately published to be considered for nomenclature. An appropriately published name is published in a printed work, that is reasonably permanent, and is made generally available to the public. Appropriately published names are referred to as available names (ICZN) or validly published names (ICBN, ICNB). That’s pretty much it - nothing about peer-reviewed journals. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/history-of-science/184605/8 "2003-06-26T23:40:30Z")
To get back to the OP: One guess would be [Edward Drinker Cope](http://www.levins.com/bwars.shtml). Cope was a paleontologist/ichthyologist/herpetologist, and a child prodigy who published his first scientific papers in his late teens. I’m not sure if the earliest ones were species descriptions or not. Whether or not Cope was the youngest, I would not be at all surprised if valid species descriptions have been published by others in their teens. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/history-of-science/184605/9 "2003-06-27T01:15:58Z")
OK Col, if you mean publish the formal scientific name as in ‘someone said it had a name’ and publihed then yeah. If you mean naming as in accepted standard then no. Bit like asking when the frst report on the physiological effcts of spaceflight was published and citing Jules Verne. ---
**Author:** ![kunoichi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4da419/32.png) [@kunoichi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kunoichi)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/history-of-science/184605/10 "2003-06-27T01:39:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Colibri \* > \*\ ***kuniochi** , I am a professional biologist and quite familiar with the ICZN. I work with taxonomists all the time. (And no, I don’t mean “printed,” I mean “published” in the sense of publicly disseminated.) Ok before you get your knickers in a twist, realize that I was talking about the post AFTER yours (by Colibri). And “Reasonably permanent” hardly refers to a newspaper, if you use the ICZN definition. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/history-of-science/184605/11 "2003-06-30T20:35:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blake \* > **OK Col, if you mean publish the formal scientific name as in ‘someone said it had a name’ and publihed then yeah. If you mean naming as in accepted standard then no.** I don’t think you understand what the “accepted standard” is. It takes very little to publish an “officially accepted” scientific name for an organism (and took even less before the revisions to the ICZN in 2000). It can be accomplished in a few sentences, even now. And once a name has been published it is “official,” in the sense that it the name must be recognized by any taxonomist dealing with that taxon in the future, even if they do not accept the designation of that taxon as a separate species. This has absolutely nothing to do with how well and how completely the description has been written. There are many species, universally recognized as full species by biologists, whose original description was very poor. Likewise there are forms whose original description was very complete and professional, which are not generally recognized as full species. The decision as to whether something is really a full species or not often depends on studies carried out by others after the initial species description. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/history-of-science/184605/12 "2003-06-30T20:53:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kunoichi \* > > **quote:** > \*Originally posted by Colibri \* > \*\*kuniochi, I am a professional biologist and quite familiar with the ICZN. I work with taxonomists all the time. (And no, I don’t mean “printed,” I mean “published” in the sense of publicly disseminated. > [@](#): > > \*\*Ok before you get your knickers in a twist, realize that I was talking about the post AFTER yours (by Colibri). And “Reasonably permanent” hardly refers to a newspaper, if you use the ICZN definition. \*\* 😕 _Which_ post were you talking about? Mine or **Colibri’s?** 😕 In any case, in the past newspaper publication has most assuredly been acceptable as a “reasonably permanent” form of publication according to the standards of the ICZN. In fact, it Edward Drinker Cope himself published some descriptions of fossil species in newspapers in order to scoop his rival in the “Bone Wars” of the late nineteenth century, Othniel C. Marsh. ---
**Author:** ![ArrMatey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/arrmatey/32/3522_2.png) [@ArrMatey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArrMatey)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/history-of-science/184605/13 "2003-06-30T21:01:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Colibri \* > \*\* A name that has been validly published cannot be used again, even if it turns out the description itself is inaccurate. \*\* Okay, color me fascinated! Can you give any examples of this? It just sounds… Weird! ---
**Author:** ![MaryEFoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@MaryEFoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaryEFoo)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/history-of-science/184605/14 "2003-06-30T21:16:40Z")
End of round: Colibri a mile ahead on points, with several knock-downs. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/history-of-science/184605/15 "2003-06-30T21:27:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blake \* > **OK Col, if you mean publish the formal scientific name as in ‘someone said it had a name’ and publihed then yeah. If you mean naming as in accepted standard then no.** What the hell are you talking about? My wife’s father is a paleontologist, somewhat well-known to people in the field. In published papers wherein he is the first to describe several organisms, he named two of the little beasties after his daughters. I won’t use real names for privacy concerns, but think of something like _Prognathus elizabethii._ These aren’t “just his” names for the animals. They are _the_ names. And they weren’t assigned by some committee, either, based on some objective criterion or metric or cladistic standard or whatever, as you seem to imply. If that were the case, there’s no way the committee would have chosen his two daughters. My wife’s father picked the names. Period. You can also read in one of the Far Side books about an entomologist who wrote Gary Larson to inform him that a species of louse (or some other parasite) had been named after the cartoonist by the scientist. I agree with **Colibri.** I think you don’t know what you’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Weak\_Force](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9dc877/32.png) [@The\_Weak\_Force](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Weak_Force)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/history-of-science/184605/16 "2003-06-30T21:33:51Z")
I have nothing to add, just that I hope you’re right, Colibri and Cervaise. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Weak\_Force](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9dc877/32.png) [@The\_Weak\_Force](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Weak_Force)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/history-of-science/184605/17 "2003-06-30T21:39:06Z")
> [@](#): > > I hope you’re right, Colibri and Cervaise. Not that there’s any reason you wouldn’t be, since you seem to know what you’re talking about. It’s refreshing to learn that it’s such a simple process 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/history-of-science/184605/18 "2003-06-30T22:48:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Colibri \* > \*\*There are many species, universally recognized as full species by biologists, whose original description was very poor. \*\* _Homo sapiens_ being an excellent example of this… ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/history-of-science/184605/19 "2003-06-30T22:58:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ArrrMatey \* > \*\*Okay, color me fascinated! Can you give any examples of this? It just sounds… Weird! \*\* One example: “Lawrence’s Warbler”, originally described as _Helminthophaga Lawrencii_ (Herrick 1875), and “Brewster’s Warbler” _Helminthophaga leucobronchialis_ (Brewster 1874) were validly described as species but turn out to be hybrids between the Blue-winged Warbler _Vermivora pinus_ and Golden-winged Warbler _Vermivora chrysoptera._ The names are technically valid (“available”) in a taxonomic sense but do not apply to real species. They may not be used for any other species to be described in the future. Another famous example is _Brontosaurus_. The name is valid (available) in a taxonomic sense, but it has been found to be a junior synonym of _Apatosaurus_, and by the rule of priority, the latter name is the technically correct one._Brontosaurus_ may not be re-used for any other taxon. Both names, incidentally, were proposed by Marsh, Cope’s rival. **The Weak Force** : Of course I’m right. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/history-of-science/184605/20 "2003-06-30T22:58:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ArrrMatey \* > \*\*Okay, color me fascinated! Can you give any examples of this? It just sounds… Weird! \*\* I’m not sure if this is exactly what **Colibri** was referring to, but once a name has been published (in whatever form), even if it is later found that the specimen more properly belongs to another genus and/or species, the latter name (assuming it was valid to begin with) becomes a synonym of the former. An example would be _Brontosaurus_, named by the aforementioned Marsh. When other researchers examined Marsh’s _Brontosaurus_ specimen, they found that it was essentially the same as Marsh’s _Apatosaurus_. Thus, _Brontosaurus_ became a “junior subjective synonym” of _Apatosaurus_. However, even though the name _Brontosaurus_ is no longer considered “correct”, it still cannot be re-used. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/history-of-science/184605.md?page=2)