A recently discovered snail has just been descibed. This is a very rare and restricted species from North Queensland. It has been named; Crikey steveirwini!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091113/en_afp/australiascienceanimalirwinoffbeat
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=207971

Ah those whacky taxonomists!

They're normally boring old f#rts, stuck in museums and herbariums (musea and herbaria?), studying dry specimens and peering down their microscopes... and giving new species very dull logical names based on Latin or Greek derivatives.

It's about time someone stepped outside of that mould and brought this whole scientific pursuit into the spotlight. What better way of doing this than giving a new species a name that catches the media's interest?

As a botanist who has a couple of plants named after me, discovered a bunch of new species and contributed thousands of specimens to herbariums, I'm all for it.

I'm also very much in favour of people being able to buy the rights to have species named after them. This has appealed to some wealthy people who have given large donations for scientific research in return for their name being immortalised within the name of a new species.

As life gets harder and politicians direct a greater portion of funding into urgent issues and hence less and less into this sort of research, self-funding of this sort and a much-improved level of publicity are going to become very important, if we are going to continue to improve our understanding of the planet's biodiversity and all the ecological and possible medical and economic ramifications connected to it.

There is still a great deal of taxonomic work to do on the macroflora and fauna, let alone on snails and invertebrates in general as well as fungi and other lower-order plants.

What do others think?

Ludwig

<< I'm also very much in favour of people being able to buy the rights to have species named after them. >>

I know the money would help further research, but I think we have enough of a problem in the world already with wealthy people buying influence. No matter what the pragmatic arguments, I'd be against this suggestion on principle.

Naming a newly discovered specimen after people, who've done good work in the field such as yourself, is I think the fair and sensible way to go.

It's a sad indictment on our shallow world that scientists feel they need to play the celebrity card to gain attention for their good work.

Perhaps if they'd done that decades ago, when they first started warning us about climate change, we wouldn't have the huge numbers of denialists we're wasting precious time on today. :)

I live in FNQ, they should have called it The Missus.

Fair comment Bronwyn.

There are certainly positives and negatives to name 'buying' and catchy names that take the media's and public's interest.

For the whole time that I have been a botanist - since the late 70s - I've seen funding decline, to the point where this sort of research is really battling.

There was a time when it rested in good stead with governments. But alas it is no longer any sort of a priority, unless it is immediately linked to economic or medical issues, or perhaps some high-profile species like the koala or wollemi pine.

There is also the danger that if significant funding was to be secured from wealthy people wanting to buy a new species name, that funding from government would decline further, roughly in proportion.

Who knows.

Anyway, I reckon this sort of science and indeed science in general needs a good solid injection of excitement. This could be easily done with a bit of imagination. Even if it is totally unsuccessfuI in increasing funding and hence research effort, I can't see that it would do any harm.

.
The Missus, I've got just the new species for you - an ironbark, of which there appear to be several unnamed species in Queensland. How's Eucalyptus themissussii sound?

Thank you Ludwig, but dont leave the other half out. The misteri would be very apt. :)

TheMissus, no worries. I reckon there are enough unnamed ironbarks out there for a Eucalyptus butchthedogii and and E. fluffythemongelnativebirdeatingcatii, etc, etc.

Um.... there is the small issue of name buying.... or let me put it more apporpriately; of assisting in the funding of this most worthy taxomonic and ecological study.

About $250 000 per name would do nicely! ( :> )

Crikey steveirwini that much!! lol

I am sort of into insects and spiders. Sometime you do see things strange and google to try and identify it with no result and wonder if it had been discovered yet. I imagine many small creatures have been seen by people, just so few people would recognise it as not being officially discovered. The forest up here is very difficult to access the virgin areas. Most access is by old logging tracks. We often try to get into a virgin area but almost impossible. Still some gems of places that nobody ever visits and see all sorts of wonderful insects. Just the leeches, mmmm not partial to those much.

TheMissus, who knows what lies out there in the deep dark rainforests of the far north. Some pretty interesting things no doubt.

A lot of plants from this area, which is my botanical backyard - the Wet Tropics between Townsville and Cooktown - have only quite recently been described. Others are known but yet to be described and named.

Recently named species even include very large rainforest trees, such as a precursor to the genus Eucalyptus which evolved out of the rainforest at the end of the Tertiary - Stockwellia quadrifida: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118944202/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
a very primitive Proteaceae, being a possible precursor to Macadamias and the like - Eidothea zoexylocaria: http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/8/1282 and an undescribed species of Argyrodendron.

If there are huge canopy trees that haven't been sorted out yet, then you can imagine that there must be all manner of small inconspicuous things. And it is not only in rainforests, it is across sclerophyllous Australia as well, not least with the ironbarks, other species of Eucalyptus, Acacia, Melaleuca, etc.

As far as insects go, it seems that the butterflies are pretty well sorted, but their sister group, the moths are nowhere near done. And just about any other group of insects or invertebrates has still got a very long way to go.

So yes, it is highly likely that you have seen a variety of undescribed critters.

Now wouldn't it be great if people were encouraged and facilitated in taking an interest, collecting specimens, field data, photos, etc and submitting them to the museum and herbarium.

I'll explore this further in the next post tomorrow.

I very strongly feel that there should be concerted efforts made to encourage lay people to be involved with the contribution of specimens, data, photos, etc.

We recently had a Weedspotters program in Queensland, in which landholders and indeed any member of the public were encouraged to participate in order to build up the database of where particular weed species occur and to gain some idea of abundance and rate of spread, etc.

It was a minor success for a few years. Now I think it has ceased to be funded.

This is the sort of thing that we need for all flora and fauna. If it was done properly, the rate of improvement in our knowledge could greatly increase. With a large-scale increase in interest, big increases in funding would be easier to secure.

Crikey, what we really need is someone like Steve Irwin to promote this stuff.

Pity he has left us