Diagnoses of new taxa

[Erast Parmasto]

On Thu, 11 Mar 1999 04:30:46 -0700,
JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE  <josephl at AZTEC.ASU.EDU> wrote:

>   The task in describing a new taxon is and should remain
>distinguishing between the new taxon and ALL existing taxa.
>Many existing Latin diagnoses distinguish between the new
>taxon and one existing taxon. I agree that this is poor,
>even though it does meet the ICBN requirements.

   It is very useful when differences of a new species from the known
related ones are given in full. But what is lacking in most old and many
new descriptions is: What Has It Common With Related Species! In other
words, usually the (presumable) synapomorphs are not indicated. As a
result, when you want to include the new species into your data matrix for
a preliminary cladistic analysis, many important characters are not
mentioned at all (for the new species). In many cases it is not
understandable, 1) has the author of a new species studied (presence of)
these characters at all, or 2) he/she thinks that their presence or absence
is understandable for a taxonomist anyway, without special mentioning. This
problem is acute when (mostly) fungi are studied: we do not know, how
careful the author was when describing MICROstructure.
   Erast Parmasto

****************************************************************
   "The main thing, is to keep the main thing, the main thing."
                                                 Scott Krippayne
****************************************************************
Erast Parmasto
Institute of Zoology & Botany, Estonian Agricultural University
181 Riia St., EE 51014 Tartu, Estonia
Phone: +372 7 383 027; Fax: +372 7 383 013
<e.parmasto at zbi.ee>