[Taxacom] Reply from Steve Trewick on Trewick (1998)

[Stephen Thorpe]

I guess I don't mind if your post the reply [below] as long as you  
make it clear that I have not sat and written a considered response to  
anything, and it really constitutes a hasty reply to you (I have not  
looked at Taxacom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It all sounds very exciting. No I am not signed up to Taxacom, and while of
course I support and encourage debate in science, I do feel there is a real
danger of the kind of (unintended) offence that you allude to. I certainly
don't feel I have the time (or the ego) to spend getting involved in this
type of debate in this particular way. However, I would certainly be
interested in writing up a commentary with you or anyone else on the issue,
using work I did in the past if need be, and submitting in for proper peer
review and publication.

As far as Onychophora are concerned I, and those who know the research had
little doubt that some individuals would be put out about the use of purely
molecular data for taxonomy. The fact that there are " certain serious
criticisms (specifically,  unrepeatability and nomenclatural problems) of
your 1998 publication by another molecular taxonomist" is neither here nor
there because the person has never spoken up openly or explained the
problem. In fact XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX but it is not for  
me to solve their problems. What was to be done (in 1998) leave the  
situation as it was and pretend other taxa do not exist within  
Peripatoides? Are non-interbreeding groups of individuals no less  
species, just because no morphology is identified? Of course not.

The interesting thing here is that no rational evolutionary biologists (and
I assume that rationalism and evolutionary biology go hand in hand) could
justify disagreeing that the data (biparental nuclear markers and mtDNA
sequence data) in the context of closely sympatric populations indicates
species distinctions, ..... if any criteria can be said to support species
designations. People who call themselves taxonomists often have real
problems with molecular characters because they cannot be applied in the
field or readily observed by users, but of course this is nuts as many
(often the majority) of characters used (for say invertebrates) involve
small features that cannot be detected without specialist equipment.
Onychophra taxonomy for example relies on electron microscopy. Problems with
taxonomic etiquette, protocol and terminology are a different issue.

You may have spotted that I am certainly no advocate of the the blind
application of molecular markers for taxonomy- neutral DNA sequence data can
be very unreliable about species and speciation. But then evolution is
tricky, especially with respect to speciation. If speciation and thus
taxonomy were simple, there would not exist the plethora of species concepts
that do. Since Darwin identified that species were mutable, we (as
systematists, evolutionists etc) have had to accept that our species
designations will always be imperfect. As evolutionists we like
imperfections :). One potentially positive outcome of the move in recent
years to build a systematic (and taxonomic) method based largely on
molecular data (a move which postdates my 1998 paper by the way), is that
more biologists feel they can get involved with taxonomy, rather than
feeling it is the sacred domain a few with exclusive (excluding) language
and practices! If not actually lodged there, my tongue is certainly on the
way towards the internal lateral periphery of my buccal cavity.

Thanks for getting in touch. Not sure if I was happier being ignorant of
what was being said about me or not.

Cheers

Steve

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.