[Taxacom] Astraptes fulgerator complex (was: barcode of life)

[Kenneth Kinman]

Dear All,
       Perhaps a concrete example will clarify the debate somewhat.
Hebert et al., 2004, "Ten Species in One" (in Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences) used their barcode study of the Astraptes
fulgerator complex (widely regarded as three or more cryptic species) to
advance the utility of barcoding beyond mere identification, but also
discovering unrecognized cryptic species.
       All well and good if they had done so in a decisive (but
conservative) manner, but instead they waffled in a manner that was
probably too timid on the one hand, and too brash on the other.  A
middle ground approach (as I repeatedly rant about) would have been the
best course.               
       The brashness is clear from the title of the paper (Ten Species
in One), which subsequent papers have criticized as unsupported by their
own data.  My criticism is that they failed to even formally name the
three most distinctive populations (CELT, TRIGO, and all the rest) as
separate species.  That would have been the most responsible, wisest,
and middle ground approach to take.         
      I would agree with their critics that recognizing 10 separate
species in this complex is unjustified.  What I have not seen in the
literature that I have seen is criticizing them for their failure to
formally recognize at least three separate species in this complex,
which I doubt anyone would seriously contest.     
       That's a very serious problem with the present state of affairs
in species recognition.  Molecular biologists too often tend to favor a
phylogenetic concept, which can often be too restrictive (raising
subspecies to species status that probably shouldn't be), and the most
conservative morphologists are resistant to molecular data (perhaps
rightly so in some cases, but not in others).  In the long term, a more
moderate (middle ground) approach is no doubt the best policy in most
cases.
      In the case of genus Astraptes, I would strongly suggest just such
a middle ground approach.  Namely, three formally named species for the
Astraptes fulgerator species complex.  If the third (most diverse)
species of this complex needs to be further divided into additional
species in the future (after more intensive study) that is fine.
However, the failure of Hebert et al., 2004, to formally name the three
most distinctive subgroups of this complex as distinct species is
extremely troubling (more so than the opposite and brash implication of
their paper "Ten Species in One").  Come on guys, sitting on the fence
just makes you a target from both sides.  Take a concrete stand with a
middle ground approach, and then we can quibble about the lesser
problems of whether to recognize more or less than 3 species in the
Astraptes fulgerator complex.  Whether some of these other populations
are synonyms or subspecies is a matter of future debate among the
specialists when more data is available.  In the interim, 3 species
seems the best baseline for debate (NOT a single species, nor ten
separate species).        
        --------------Ken Kinman