Porcellio echinatus Lucas, 1849

Taken from:
Lucas, H. (1846) Exploration scientifique de l'Algérie pendant les années 1840, 1841, 1842. Zool. - Anim. articulés. 1" partie : Crustcés, Arachnides, Myriapodes et Hexapodes.
Text (p.1, 1846): https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/46116747
Plate (p.4, 1849): https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/54761491

comments (7)

Ferdy Christant

Lion

Sorry Arp, but I'm not entirely in favor of identifying photos of plates as the species.

I know you mean well and I understand what you're trying to do. Yet I must maintain the illusion of some consistency here :) We do need a better solution for this, the ability to upload anything (docs, photos) as part of a species record.

For the time being, I'm removing the ID yet feel encouraged to still include it within the context by means of an image link, or tags.

Hope you understand. Posted 6 years ago
1. Pudding4brains
  
  Lion
  
  Hi Ferdy, of course I disagree - but I can live with your decision without a problem ;o)
  
  The reason I disagree is this: This here description _IS_ the species. Within the concept of species, a species is only valid when described and named properly in the context of a publicly available publication. Today, it is imperative that a description of a new species is accompanied by the deposition of one or more type specimen in a collection, but historically that has not always been the case. And where it has been the case these type specimen have often been lost after hundreds of years of storage; eaten by other bugs, spontaneously disintegrated, destroyed by war, or simply disposed of by someone ignorant enough.
  So more often than not, all we have left is the original description (or an excepted redescription by a later author). THAT is what defines the species. Put differently: Only the type specimen that came with the description (if still in existance) and the description itself are what define the species. _All_ other specimen (or images thereof) that refer to this species name are merely a matter of OPINION that these would concur completely with the described species and often this opinion is changed over time.
  Looking at it from that perspective, you may understand why I think it is valid to classify an original description under the species name, but of course you're entitled to your own point of view ;o)
  Cheers, Arp Posted 6 years ago
2. 1. Pudding4brains
    
    Lion
    
    PS I just noticed that in the "References" section of the species account it is possible to blend in the image, as done now here:
    https://www.jungledragon.com/specie/20160 Posted 6 years ago
  2. 1. Ferdy Christant
      
      Lion
      
      You blow my mind, I don't recall ever building that, just discovered a new feature lol. Posted 6 years ago
    2. 1. Pudding4brains
        
        Lion
        
        I tried the "Description" section first - that didn't pan out (not even a clickable link), so I decided to move it to the References as links _are_ clickable there. And whadyaknow ... the thumb came up :o) Posted 6 years ago
  3. Ferdy Christant
    
    Lion
    
    Fair enough. To show you that I can be reasoned with, I think you're right in this case. I would still have the practical concern that a species or taxon's cover image may get something unexpected when seen in other contexts in JD, but as you point out: it is justified in this case.
    
    I still would prefer a future feature where we can separate between "normal" images and supplemental material, but that one's on me. Posted 6 years ago
  4. 1. Pudding4brains
      
      Lion
      
      I was cool with it not being allowed as "species image", but appreciate your willingness to discuss and change your mind (truly)! Posted 6 years ago