THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (NEW ANAT.) 269:239–241, 2002 COMMENTARY Is Paleoanthropology Science? Naming New Fossils and Control of Access to Them IAN TATTERSALL* AND JEFFREY H. SCHWARTZ Progress in paleoanthropology is impeded when new fossil materials are published but unavailable for comparative study, as is too often the case. In this commentary, we review the stages of description and analysis that new fossils must undergo and conclude that it is disingenuous to argue that fossils have not been properly “published” when descriptions and new names formulated in accordance with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature have appeared in leading scientific journals. Once such names and descriptions have been published, it is imperative that the original fossils concerned be available to the scientific community for comparative analysis, for by the very nature of science, no statement about such fossils, however carefully prepared by the original describers (or anyone else), can be regarded as definitive. Science is a system of provisional knowledge that constantly requires re-examination and testing. It cannot function as a system in which assertions have to be left unchallenged for want of free access to the primary data. Anat Rec (New Anat) 269:239–241, 2002. © 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc. KEY WORDS: fossils; paleoanthropology; comparative anatomy; evolution; morphology; systematics A recent “News Focus” article in Paleoanthropology is a comparative All of this may seem pretty straight- Science (Gibbons, 2002) has again science that depends on fossil speci- forward, but in practice, complica- brought to the forefront an important mens, all of which are individually tions have nonetheless arisen over sci- and contentious matter for all inter- unique. Fossils representing the same entific access to published fossils, ested in comparative morphology and species are frequently distributed especially those ascribed to hominid human and vertebrate evolution. The among several institutions around the species. matter in question is the crucial one of world, and all must, ideally, be seen Description of fossils is usually a rel- access by scientists to published type by researchers working on the groups atively uncomplicated process, even if and other specimens belonging to fos- to which they belong. In beginning it is not based on a standard formula. sil hominid and other species. And be- this commentary, it may thus be Naming of new species has to be done cause the difficulties for the progress worthwhile to review the sequence of following rules laid down in the Inter- of science that this issue raises were events involved as new material enters national Code of Zoological Nomencla- originally addressed in the pages of the arena of scientific debate. ture (ICZN, 1999). This document The New Anatomist by Weber (2001), New fossils are found by individuals specifies minimum standards which, it seems worthwhile to attempt to or field teams and are deposited in if met, make the new name official clarify some of the issues that readers museum or equivalent collections. To under international agreement. One may have found a little hazy in the become part of the scientific database, of the requirements, in addition to a Science report. they have to be identified to species list of distinguishing features, is the and they have to be described in a designation of a “type” specimen (“ho- Dr. Tattersall is Curator in the Division recognized vehicle of publication. If lotype”), which will be the name- of Anthropology, the American Museum they are believed to represent a previ- bearer for the species. A crucial factor of Natural History, New York, New York. ously unidentified species, they addi- is the scientific accessibility of such Dr. Schwartz is in the Departments of Anthropology and History and Philoso- tionally have to be formally named. specimens, for all specimens that are phy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, Also standard practice at this stage is allocated to a particular species have Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. *Correspondence to: Ian Tattersall, Di- a preliminary interpretation of the to be compared with the holotype of vision of Anthropology, the American material’s phylogenetic significance. that species to confirm their specific Museum of Natural History, New York, However, such interpretation by the identity. For this reason, the Code NY 10024. E-mail: [email protected] describers merely introduces an ongo- specifies procedures for replacing DOI 10.1002/ar.10187 ing process that will continue indefi- types in the case of their nonavailabil- Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). nitely, and will invariably involve ity for study. many other systematists in the field. It naturally takes a certain amount © 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc. 240 THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (NEW ANAT.) COMMENTARY of time to describe a new fossil, to substitutes for the originals in any than his teacher in “chronospecies” determine its affinities, and to publish event) are rarely available and, as (White, 2002), the notion whereby it. During this period, it is generally most readers of this journal well species are no more than ephemeral agreed that the finders of the material know, photographs of specimens pub- and arbitrarily delimited segments of in question have the right to exclusive lished in Nature or Science tend to be evolving lineages. This outlook pro- access. Once the publication has ap- so small and lacking in contrast that duces an entirely different picture of peared, however, the specimen is in much useful information is obscured. human evolution—and of the signifi- the public domain. It has entered the Because of comments she had re- cance of particular fossils—than the scientific database and can no longer ceived from the leader of one of these one that emerges from the growing be ignored by other scientists—who describing cliques to the effect that he awareness that species are individu- require direct access to it to test the had assembled the best possible team ated entities and that hominid history original describers’ claims for it, or to to study one set of fossils concerned has been a matter of diversity and evo- compare their own specimens with it (and thus by implication that it was lutionary experimentation. We do not to determine whether or not all belong unnecessary for others to see them), wish to argue here the relative merits to the same taxon. Nonetheless, there the author of the Science report asked of these two evolutionary models. We is a growing tendency for some finders us if it “really mattered” whether only merely wish to point out that this dif- not to permit access even after this the describers and their cronies saw ference of mindset leaves its mark crucial rite de passage. In such cases, the type specimens of new species at even at the level of basic description, the usual claim recently has been that first-hand. And while on the surface let alone that of analysis, and that no the initial publications, even when this question might seem to be per- single exegesis of a fossil’s form and prepared in accord with the dictates of fectly reasonable, the appropriate re- significance will ever be definitive. the Code and published in major vehi- sponse to it requires understanding Science itself flourishes on diversity, cles such as Nature and Science, merely how science works. Science is not a and the attempt to eliminate diversity constitute “announcements” (Gibbons, of ideas and interpretation only re- 2002; B. Asfaw, personal communica- dounds to the profound disadvantage tion). “Publication,” it is disingenuously of the scientific enterprise. contended, occurs only with the ap- The practice of science What is more, every branch of sci- pearance of a long interpretive mono- is a dynamic, self- ence is a corporate enterprise involving graph. the activities of very many individuals. Very occasionally, such a mono- correcting process, In paleontology, no one individual or graph appears within a few years of constantly testing (and group has found, or controls, all of the the original publication; but as com- fossils necessary to carry out a particu- monly, this process takes decades, if discarding) ideas, rather lar research project. Everyone requires indeed it is ever completed. Louis than seeking to engrave access to fossils in the control of others Leakey’s Homo habilis type materials to carry out such research, and the fos- were monographed only some 30 them in stone. sils any individual finds will never be years after their discovery (Tobias, more than a fractional part of all the 1991), while the important crania fossils he or she will ever study. Mutual from Forbes’ Quarry and Steinheim system of absolutes. A minimal de- recognition of this fact among paleon- have still not been monographed, re- scription of a specimen will certainly tologists is crucial; and although no- spectively, 150 and 69 years after their serve to make it a legal holotype, but it body should ever disparage the efforts discoveries. Among more recently dis- is not a statement for the ages. The of those who undergo considerable dis- covered fossils, several new hominid practice of science is a dynamic, self- comfort and even hardship to find (or, species legally published as early as correcting process, constantly testing worse, as we well know, not find) im- 1994 still remain off-limits to re- (and discarding) ideas, rather than portant new hominid fossils, it is none- searchers not belonging to the de- seeking to engrave them in stone. theless true that that discoverer’s bias scribing cliques. This has potentially Even what appear to be observa- (the feeling that “only I know how to harmful consequences, for, if not rap- tions and plain descriptions are con- interpret my fossil”) is a danger that is idly subjected to informed scrutiny, ditioned by hypotheses and expecta- not always avoided.