What do you call a species only detected once in nature?

[radiolarian]

Hello, first post here. I am working on an article that discusses an organism, specifically a gilled mushroom in the order Strophariaceae, that has only been found once in nature. Saying that the organism is "critically endangered" or "extinct in the wild" seems incorrect as nothing is known about the historical distribution. A biologist could not isolate a new species of diatom and then say that it is "critically endangered" simply because it had never been found previously. Yet I cannot find an appropriate terms for this sort of organism, there are equivalent terms used in linguistics like hapax legomenon i.e. a word that only occurs once in a text, but what do you call such an organism only found once in the environment? I am posting this question in the microbiology subforum because I imagine this is quite a common occurrence amongst those who study bacteria, fungi, and viruses.

Lastly, if one finds an organism that is genetically and phenotypically distinct enough to be called a new species, yet they have only found one specimen, is that sufficient evidence to publish their findings in the appropriate taxonomic journal?

[JorgeLobo]

You speak of it as an organism rather than offering a specific epithet. How was it actualy described and in what (published) forum? But it is an interesting question - esp. if that single description is based on visual observation of a single basidiocarp. Overall. the status of this "organism" sounds pretty weak. Agree with the description -"endangered" is more a policy than technical description and it's hard to claim a negative (extinct) in the context you offered . You really don't need to coin a term - just say it was described only once.

As for the last question - I believe yes if one has both unqiue phenotypic and genotypic characterization. Seen this in bacteria taxonomy.

[canalon]

More information on what and how to publish new species (description, deposit in international collections and so on) can probably be found here:
http://ijs.sgmjournals.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtml

[JackBean]

About two years ago, new species of spider was published based on two specimen

[JorgeLobo]

Canalon - that ref is largely for microorganisms. For fungi observed in natural via basidiocarps, classification wasand to a lrge extent stil is based on detailed basidiocarp anatomy and basidiospore description from specimens gathered in the field. These are typically deposited in regional herbaria. Complexities of pure culture, plody etc. have limited more rigorous efforts. I've not worked in this area for years and understand there has been some progress.
I hope radiolarian can say more about the elements of his post..

Jack - can you give us a ref for the spider taxonomy?

[canalon]

Sorry, my bad. This time I was the one reading too fast.
Cannot help WRT to fungi, I have no sense of humor

[radiolarian]

Hi, sorry for being vague. Although I was referring to a specific species, my question is ultimately more general/hypothetical. I know of another example where a specimen thought to be a new species, or at the very least a highly unusual strain of P. pelliculosa, was collected in Telluride. When I asked someone who had seen the specimen why it was not described in a taxonomic journal (Mycotaxon etc.) they said "two specimens are required for formal taxonomic identification." I don't believe this is true though, or if it is the problem would be simple to rectify by culturing the single collected specimen and then publish on what is grown in a laboratory.

Anyway, like I said in the OP, I imagine this is a fairly common occurrence in bacteriology, virology, mycology etc. and I was wondering what scientists usually do when they discover a single specimen of something new.

[JackBean]

it's this one
http://www.biolib.cz/en/taxon/id652849/

[JorgeLobo]

Thanks Jack - interesting name and mating practices.

[JackBean]

Indeed. But I was looking on the article again and I'm not sure it was based on two specimen anymore :-/