[Taxacom] Re; New lizard species

[Stephen Thorpe]

>In fact, completely bloody useless for taxonomy
Agreed! But Code compliant nonetheless...




________________________________
From: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
To: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Mon, 7 June, 2010 12:12:47 PM
Subject: Re; [Taxacom] New lizard species

Stephen,

I don't think a legalistic argument works here. Suppose I publish a new species of Lumbricus with this diagnosis:

'Distinguished from L. terrestris as follows: when dug up at midnight under a full moon, then soaked for one hour in a bucket of water to which 3 drops of fresh Sumatran rhino urine has been added, L. thorpei sp. n. will appear slightly glabrous in the light from a model LG15 Lavalamp, whereas L. terrestris will appear distinctly glabrous.'

How's that for an explicit diagnosis? A bit witchcrafty, maybe, and that fresh rhino urine could be expensive.

Now try this: extract, amplify and sequence mitochondrial 12S and the nuclear genes BDNF, PNN, NGFB, FRIH and PRDX4. Do a multiple sequence alignment using MUSCLE, apply a 'best' sequence evolution model determined with the AIC, then build a tree following the method outlined in Leache and Fujita. See where the terminals cluster, e.g. 'with those from the southern portion of the Congolian rainforest included in this study (southern Cameroon, Gabon and Congo)'.

Solid science, there. A bit vague, maybe, and definitely expensive. Not the sort of thing for identifying old museum specimens, for sure. In fact, completely bloody useless for taxonomy.
-- 
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