Accepted by A. Minelli: 9 Jun. 2016; published: 19 Jul. 2016 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 128 ZOOTAXA ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) Copyright © 2016 Magnolia Press Zootaxa 4139 (1): 128–130 http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Correspondence http://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4139.1.8 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:BBF08312-53A6-4B3B-A3BF-A91D4D78B2FB Warning: potential problems for taxonomy on the horizon? FABIO CIANFERONI 1,2 & LUCA BARTOLOZZI 1 1 Natural History Museum of the University of Florence, Zoological Section “La Specola”, I-50125 Florence, Italy. E-mail: fabio.cianferoni@unifi.it 2 CNR—National Research Council of Italy, Institute of Agroenvironmental and Forest Biology, I-00015 Monterotondo Scalo (Rome), Italy. Whether or not a species might reasonably be described without the preservation of a type specimen is a matter of ongoing discussion among taxonomists (Dubois & Nemésio 2007; Minteer et al. 2014; Krell & Wheeler 2014; Löbl et al. 2016; Marshall & Evenhuis 2016; Santos et al. 2016). Here, we attempt to make our own contribution to the topic. Marshall & Evenhuis (2015) recently described a new species of Bombyliidae fly based only on photographic evidence. In the paper, they reiterated the obvious reasons why collecting specimens is highly desirable, but they also stated that “even in the absence of a collected type specimen, current technologies such as high-resolution photography can often provide enough information for a proper description resulting in a readily recognizable and unequivocally distinct newly named species”. They also “expect that descriptions unsupported by existing physical type specimens will be subject to especially critical scrutiny by skeptical editors and responsible peer-reviewers before accepting such papers”. There has recently been some debate within the scientific community regarding the collection of specimens in the field. Minteer et al. (2014) stated that while biologists traditionally collect voucher specimens to confirm a species’ existence, this practice could nowadays increase the risk of extinction, particularly among small and often isolated populations. They claimed that the availability of adequate alternative methods of documentation, including high- resolution photography, could provide an opportunity to reconsider field collection practices, and concluded that “collecting specimens is no longer required to describe a species or to document its rediscovery”. On the other hand, Krell & Wheeler (2014) replied that “describing a new species without depositing a holotype when a specimen can be preserved borders on taxonomic malpractice. Even given good photographs and a tissue sample, there are reasons to collect one or more complete specimens”. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature both in the general “Principles” and in “Principle of Typification” (ICZN 1999) (Art. 61.1.2) uses the term “specimens” to denote name-bearing types, but also uses “extant specimens” (Art. 16.4.2), which essentially allows the description of new taxa without formally requiring the preservation of collected specimens (Art. 73.1.4). Thus—according to the zoological Code—the position taken by Marshall and Evenhuis would seem formally correct, although the illustration should be treated as a representation of the type and not as the type itself (see Dubois & Nemésio 2007). Several species of birds and mammals have recently been described without the authors referring to material deposited in collections (Dubois & Nemésio 2007). It is well known the recent description of Conolophus marthae Gentile & Snell, 2009, the Galápagos pink land iguana, whose holotype is a free living individual, but that is permanently branded, with a transponder inserted in one of its legs, and from which blood samples have been collected and sequenced (Gentile & Snell 2009; see Dubois 2009 for a comprehensive discussion). The description of new taxa pertaining to the nomenclatural domain of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (McNeill et al. 2012), without preservation of specimens is (after 2006) excluded, with the exceptions of fossils (Art. 8.1, 40.4) or “if there are technical difficulties of preservation or if it is impossible to preserve a specimen that would show the features attributed to the taxon by the author of the name”. These latter cases refer to “microscopic algae or microfungi” for which “the type […] may be an effectively published illustration” (Art. 40.5). The International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (Lapage et al. 1992) allows the use of descriptions or illustrations solely for prokaryotic microorganisms which have “not so far been maintained in laboratory culture or for which a type strain does not exist” (Rule 18a). If “later a strain of this species is cultivated, then the type strain may be designated […]. This type strain shall then replace the description, illustration, or preserved specimen as the