[Taxacom] New lizard species

[Richard Zander]

I agree with Bob Mesibov's take on the lizard species paper. Although
there are obvious horrors in the paper, particularly few samples, no
correlation with morphology or ecology, no statement of what the point
is in these "species," I think it is time classical systematics takes a
stand against phylogenetics, particularly its incarnation of the old
automatic classification promoted by (some) pheneticists. 

I don't necessarily suggest that "the old ways are best" but they sure
are better than present-day axiomized systematics. Remember how genetics
was axiomized in the mid-1900's in the Soviet Union? It killed Vavilov
in the Gulag and contributed to the famines of the 60's. I think
phylogenetic scrambling of taxa will do the same for biodiversity
analysis nowadays, with similar sad results. (1) Critical taxa are
lumped because they make other taxa paraphyletic (e.g. polar bears don't
exist biodiversitywise, cacti are only portulacas, birds are just
airborne reptiles), and (2) Critical taxa are buried among a plethora of
molecular nonsense species. 

I think classical systematists should take a stand against structuralist
empty precision and false "hard science," and make funders realize that
good systematics means investigation of all data that inform an
evolution-based classification, including alpha taxonomy (collection and
delimitation of species), classical systematics (higher categories),
parsimony of morphology (helps make natural keys), molecular systematics
(helps show genetic continuity and isolation events in the pedigree of
specimens used as OTUs), and biosystematics (helps determine extent and
direction of evolution).

*****************************
Richard H. Zander 
Voice: 314-577-0276
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
richard.zander at mobot.org
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
*****************************

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Bob Mesibov
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 7:19 PM
To: TAXACOM
Subject: [Taxacom] New lizard species

If you haven't seen it, do read

Leache, A.D. and Fujita, M.K. 2010. Bayesian species delimitation in
West African forest geckos (Hemidactylus fasciatus). Proceedings of the
Royal Society B. Published online as doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0662

In a well-argued and very clear paper, the authors plump for
probabilistic determination of species, and name four *Linnean* species
on probabilistic grounds. They say '...we are not aware of any
morphological or ecological characteristics that differentiate these
lineages,' and therefore diagnose their species as follows (one
example):

'Diagnosis. This species includes all populations that cluster with
those from the southern portion of the Congolian rainforest included in
this study (southern Cameroon, Gabon and Congo), with strong support in
the Bayesian species delimitation model.'

I don't actually have a problem with the methods used or the argument.
My concern is that the authors confuse Linnean species with lineages.
Lineages can be diagnosed within a probabilistic framework. They give us
an insight into how evolution might possibly have happened. Linnean
species are those nice, easily recognised things that enable us to
retrieve biodiversity information, write field guides and feel that we
have a handle on natural history.

It's been obvious for a long time that Linnean taxonomy and molecular
taxonomy were headed in different directions, but this paper (IMO) is a
clumsy attempt to yoke them back together.
-- 
Dr Robert Mesibov
Honorary Research Associate
Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
03 64371195; 61 3 64371195
Webpage: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/mesibov.html

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here