BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:What's in a name? Negotiations of credibility and authority in the
  naming of the giant otter shrew (Potamogale velox) - Catarina Madruga (Un
 iversidade de Lisboa)
DTSTART:20171106T130000Z
DTEND:20171106T140000Z
UID:TALK85131@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:Sebestian Kroupa
DESCRIPTION:The nineteenth century is commonly associated with the growth 
 of imperial trade routes and a 'deluge' of specimens that is said to have 
 flooded natural history museums and collections together with a surge in t
 he number of known biological species. However\, the practice of naming ne
 w species continued to pose a challenge to an increasingly larger\, more i
 nternational\, and more specialized community of naturalists.\n\nThis pape
 r introduces the context behind the numerous names and descriptions of the
  elusive giant otter shrew (_Potamogale velox_)\, a small African mammal w
 ith a laterally compressed tail\, aquatic feeding\, and elusive behaviour 
 that challenged its first scientific descriptions. In his travel accounts 
 in 1861\, the French-American explorer Paul Du Chaillu provisionally calle
 d the animal that he had caught in Gabon – and that he thought was a new
  species of carnivore – _Cynogale velox_. After observing the specimen\,
  John Edward Gray\, the keeper of the British Museum\, called the animal _
 Mythomys_\, a figment of the explorer's imagination. When new and more com
 plete specimens arrived in Europe some years later\, the Portuguese zoolog
 ist and museum director José Vicente Barbosa du Bocage\, proposed to revi
 ew it as the insectivore _Bayonia angolensis_\, while almost at the same t
 ime\, the Scottish professor George J. Allman named it _Potamogale velox_\
 , referring back to Du Chaillu as the original describer.\n\nThe problemat
 ic characteristics of the actual animal were reflected in the confused des
 cription\, publication\, and nomenclature process. Beyond the specimens th
 emselves\, this paper demonstrates that the naturalists' practices of nego
 tiation of credibility and authority were just as problematic\, as these e
 xperts put forward their claims for what constitutes a credible name and a
 n appropriate description\, and fought over who should have the credential
 s to name new species. This paper shows how the Code for Zoological nomenc
 lature\, the nature of which was being discussed in the community at the t
 ime\, was not sufficient to assure standardization of practices when so li
 ttle information was available and\, especially\, when credit\, authority\
 , and reputation were at stake.
LOCATION:Seminar Room 1\, Department of History and Philosophy of Science
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR