On p. 331 of this issue, Tamás Görföl and colleagues, under the direction of Gabor Csorba (Hungarian Natural History Museum), describe a new genus of vespertilionid bat. Is this noteworthy? Of course. But how much so? One way of answering these questions is to examine past trends, as may be detailed in taxonomic compendia, to assess present patterns and potential future progress in illuminating taxonomic diversity. Results of that exercise are shown in Fig. 1. With respect to genera, the slope of the genus line describes a relationship between year and newly described vespertilionid genera (omitting Duff and Lawson 2004) of 0.4 genera per year (R2 = 0.64; P = 0.057). It is clearly far easier to find new species of Vespertilionidae (5 per year: R2 = 0.85; P = 0.009) or indeed, any bat (12 per year: R2 = 0.84; P = 0.01), with the random aside that new species of Vespertilionidae account for almost half of all newly described bat species. However, those data belie an underlying shift in the pattern that is not readily apparent from the analysis: the first few taxonomic works show very little change among themselves, or even a decrease in these numbers. Wilson and Reeder (1993), for example, is the low point in those data: residuals are −8 vespertilionid genera, −28 vespertilionid species, and −116 bat species (those data were compiled by Koopman [1993]). That picture changes as more recent works show a sharp rebound. The Mammal Diversity Database of Burgin et al. (2018) has residuals of +7 vespertilionid genera, +31 vespertilionid species, and +80 bat species. What do these more recent analyses indicate? Is this a trend of which we should take note, or is this just a temporary change from the background? Stephen Jay Gould famously wrote in one of his essays that “recognition, rather than machismo, is often the basis of exotic discovery” (Gould 1980:35). That aphorism was based on the perception at the time that the large field expeditions of discovery (e.g., MacCreagh 1926; Carroll 2009), whose allure HeadA=HeadB=HeadA=HeadB/HeadA HeadB=HeadC=HeadB=HeadC/HeadB HeadA=HeadC=HeadA=HeadC/HeadB HeadC=HeadD=HeadC=HeadD/HeadC HeadD=HeadE=HeadD=HeadE/HeadD Extract3=HeadA=Extract1=HeadA BORE_HeadA=BORE_HeadB=BORE_HeadA=BORE_HeadB/HeadA BORE_HeadB=BORE_HeadC=BORE_HeadB=BORE_HeadC/HeadB BORE_HeadC=BORE_HeadD=BORE_HeadC=BORE_HeadD/HeadC BORE_Extract3=BORE_HeadA=BORE_Extract1=BORE_HeadA BOR_HeadA=BOR_HeadB=BOR_HeadA=BOR_HeadB/HeadA BOR_HeadB=BOR_HeadC=BOR_HeadB=BOR_HeadC/HeadB BOR_HeadC=BOR_HeadD=BOR_HeadC=BOR_HeadD/HeadC BOR_Extract3=BOR_HeadA=BOR_Extract1=BOR_HeadA COMT_HeadA=COMT_HeadB=COMT_HeadA=COMT_HeadB/HeadA COMT_HeadB=COMT_HeadC=COMT_HeadB=COMT_HeadC/HeadB COMT_HeadC=COMT_HeadD=COMT_HeadC=COMT_HeadD/HeadC COMT_Extract3=COMT_HeadA=COMT_Extract1=COMT_HeadA OBIT_HeadA=OBIT_HeadB=OBIT_HeadA=OBIT_HeadB/HeadA OBIT_HeadB=OBIT_HeadC=OBIT_HeadB=OBIT_HeadC/HeadB OBIT_HeadC=OBIT_HeadD=OBIT_HeadC=OBIT_HeadD/HeadC OBIT_Extract3=OBIT_HeadA=OBIT_Extract1=OBIT_HeadA ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB/HeadA ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC/HeadB ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD/HeadC ERR_Extract3=ERR_HeadA=ERR_Extract1=ERR_HeadA Abstract=Abstract=Abstract=Abstract_Text applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure"

中文翻译：

---

编辑的选择

在第。在本期第 331 期，Tamás Görföl 及其同事在 Gabor Csorba（匈牙利自然历史博物馆）的指导下，描述了一种新的 vespertilionid 蝙蝠。这值得注意吗？当然。但多少呢？回答这些问题的一种方法是检查过去的趋势，正如分类学纲要中所详述的那样，以评估阐明分类多样性的当前模式和潜在的未来进展。该练习的结果如图 1 所示。关于属，属线的斜率描述了年与新描述的 vespertilionid 属（省略 Duff 和 Lawson 2004）之间的关系，每年有 0.4 个属（R2 = 0.64；P = 0.057）。显然更容易找到新的 Vespertilionidae 物种（每年 5 个：R2 = 0.85；P = 0.009）或任何蝙蝠（每年 12 个：R2 = 0.84；P = 0.01），顺便说一句，Vespertilionidae 的新物种几乎占所有新描述的蝙蝠物种的一半。然而，这些数据掩盖了模式中的潜在转变，而这一转变在分析中并不明显：最初的几项分类学工作显示出它们之间的变化很小，甚至这些数字都有所下降。例如，Wilson 和 Reeder (1993) 是这些数据中的最低点：残差为 -8 vespertilionid 属、-28 vespertilionid 物种和 -116 蝙蝠物种（这些数据由 Koopman [1993] 编制）。随着最近的作品出现急剧反弹，这种情况发生了变化。Burgin 等人的哺乳动物多样性数据库。(2018) 有 +7 vespertilionid 属、+31 vespertilionid 物种和 +80 蝙蝠物种的残差。这些最近的分析表明了什么？这是我们应该注意的趋势吗？或者这只是背景的临时变化？斯蒂芬·杰·古尔德 (Stephen Jay Gould) 在他的一篇文章中著名地写道“认可，而不是大男子主义，通常是异国发现的基础”（Gould 1980:35）。该格言是基于当时的认知，即大范围的野外发现探险（例如，MacCreagh 1926；Carroll 2009），