[Taxacom] Describing genera without molecular phyolgies

Sat May 23 00:10:05 CDT 2020

I fully agree with Jason. But the contrary happens all the time. In the mega-genus  Aphodius (dung beetles), Jason's group, all the numerous subgenera were upgraded to genera without any phylogenetic analysis at all. Since this must have been progress, it got readily accepted (except by some old farts like me who still use Aphodius for the whole thing). Now that they are all genera and their distinguishing characters are often minor, the creation of additional genera started and continues if some species doesn't fit into the existing typologically defined genera. A combination of the urge to be taxonomically up to date and the uncritical trust in authority has led to this unfortunate situation. Science works in mysterious ways.
We need phylogenetic analyses (not necessarily molecular, but it can help) before making wide-ranging changes to the first parts of established binomina.

Frank

Dr. Frank-Thorsten Krell

Senior Curator of Entomology, Editor-in-Chief
Commissioner and Councillor, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Department of Zoology
Denver Museum of Nature & Science
2001 Colorado Blvd
Denver, Colorado 80205-5798, U.S.A.
Frank.krell at dmns.org
Phone 303.370.8244
Fax 303.331.6492
https://www.dmns.org/science/zoology/staff/frank-krell/
The Museum is currently closed to the public to support Denver’s effort to slow the spread of the coronavirus. We look forward to announcing when we’ll be able to welcome our staff and guests back to the Museum. 
Please support the Museum’s commitment to providing free learning for families and teachers during this time: www.dmns.org/dmnsgive.

The Museum’s strategic objective is to increase the number and diversity of people who connect with the Museum around nature and science in ways that are meaningful to them.

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of JF Mate via Taxacom
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 10:44 PM
To: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Describing genera without molecular phyolgies

Thanks John. A useful article as I am struggling with the same problems in my group but from the other side.  I can't comment on snails but my opinion is that without a phylogenetic framework, molecular or morphological, taxonomists should be extremely prudent creating supra-specific taxa.

Best

Jason

On Sat, 23 May 2020, 12:52 John Grehan via Taxacom, < taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> Since I do that all the time I am in some sympathy with the extracted 
> text below of a fairly recent article. Thought it might be of interest 
> to others who may not be aware of it.
>
> John Grehan
>
> BARNA PÁLL-GERGELY 2017 Should we describe genera without molecular 
> phylogenies? Zootaxa 4232 (4): 593–596
>
> For nearly a decade I have published species descriptions and 
> revisions of land snails in peer- reviewed journals. As a systematist, 
> it is often requisite to reclassify species into other, sometimes unnamed genera.
> Although in most cases editors and reviewers have not commented on the 
> taxonomic changes I have made and the new taxa I described, I 
> sometimes received negative critiques when I described new genera 
> unaided by molecular phylogenetic support. I feel these critiques have 
> become increasingly more frequent, and am convinced that many fellow 
> taxonomists share this experience. Addressing this problem is 
> particularly difficult due to three reasons. First, it is impossible 
> to support these observations with statistical data (i.e. the 
> frequency of similar reviews increasing or not); second, the 
> increasing number of published phylogenetic works reveals more and 
> more cases of polyphyletic genera, which might suggest that 
> morphology-based generic grouping is unreliable, and thus, should be 
> avoided; and third, no publications exist suggesting not to describe 
> genera using (still) reliable morphological foundations. Subsequently, 
> the unsatisfactory review process of taxonomic works is often 
> exacerbated by the biases of reviewers and their inobservance of 
> valuable historic convention in light of the current wave of molecular 
> phylogenies. Moreover, the future value of morphological descriptions 
> for biodiversity assessments (i.e. IUCN) is not even addressed. Here, 
> I argue against prohibiting descriptions of genera without 
> phylogenetic support, and make suggestions how editors and reviewers 
> should handle "phylogeny-free" genus descriptions. To illustrate my 
> experience, I quote some text from previous reviews and editorial 
> comments that I have received: Editor of a taxonomic journal, 
> (07.02.2012). "(...) In particular, I need you to provide much more 
> information regarding your decision to erect new genera; as of now you 
> provide no rationale, and you must fully defend this approach. I 
> frankly would feel much more comfortable if you had corroborating DNA 
> sequence analyses to demonstrate that these are not simply subgenera 
> or even simple groups within already existing genera -- and you have 
> not even minimally done this. There is a strong burden of poof to 
> undertake such splitting, and I expect these decisions to be clearly 
> reasoned and proved with empirical data. If you cannot do this, then I 
> strongly suggest that you place your new taxa into already existing 
> generic entities." Anonymous reviewer (02.11.2016). "(...) As for the 
> description of a new subgenus, I am strongly opposed to this taxonomic 
> proposal. Taxonomy serves three possible purposes: (1) the ego of the 
> author, (2) the human desire to classify things, (3) the scientific 
> purpose to conceptualize ideas about the evolutionary relationships amongst organisms. The only purpose this new subgenus serves is 1. (...) As for purpose 3, attempting to conceptualize the evolutionary relationships of species, this decision is even worse.
> Inevitably, you are making a statement about the evolution of this 
> group and you imply that one species is the sister group of all other 
> species combined based on one character. You have a one in six chance 
> that you are right because your treatment is not backed up by any 
> phylogenetic analysis." Anonymous reviewer (23.11.2016) "(...) The 
> taxonomic description of the new species is also good. However, in the 
> absence of molecular sequence data, I consider that there are 
> insufficient grounds for erecting a new genus. (...) As taxonomists 
> living in the 21st century we have a responsibility to investigate the 
> phylogenetic basis of historically-erected genera and sub-genera by 
> the combined study of morphological and molecular data. This is often 
> not possible because of limited funding, and so the best course when 
> describing species new to science is to work with existing generic and 
> sub-generic names and to avoid contributing to taxonomic instability 
> by creating new generic level taxa purely on the basis of a few shell 
> characters." 594 · Zootaxa 4232 (4) ©
> 2017 Magnolia Press PÁLL-GERGELY In the first case, my proposal to 
> erect new pulmonate land snail genera was based on shell and genital 
> anatomical characters, whereas in the latter two cases, I attempted to 
> describe new (sub)genera based on differences of the breathing tubes, 
> a traditional approach used in the respective land snail groups 
> (Kobelt, 1902). In other words, 30–200 years ago the scientific 
> community would not have questioned the establishment of these new 
> genera based on morphology. Naturally, without knowing the background 
> of the above examples, it is not possible to form an opinion whether I 
> was right or wrong when I tried to erect new genera, although this is 
> not my point here. Instead, I aim to show that the preference of existing generic names over erecting new genera is strong.
> Are the reviewers right? Strictly speaking, the reviewers, who 
> disapprove and forbid morphology-based genera may be right. "How do I 
> know that they are really monophyletic?" We cannot know whether a 
> taxon is monophyletic without a proper phylogeny. To investigate this 
> question we have to go back to the definition of the genus. If we 
> define a genus as "a group of species that are more closely related to 
> one another than they are to any species assigned to another genus" 
> (Wood & Collard 1999: 201), then only an appropriate phylogeny would 
> provide satisfactory evidence, although a hypothesis of monophyly 
> based on morphology should be also acceptable. If we define a genus as 
> a group of species defined by apomorphic character states, morphology 
> is sufficient. Regardless of generic definitions or criteria, which 
> are usually not given in genus descriptions, monophyly of genera is, 
> or at least should be assumed (Ebach et al. 2006) (although species 
> are not necessarily monophyletic; Schluter & Nagel 1995, Nosil et al. 
> 2002). The level of provided supporting evidence should be up to the 
> journal's policy and the taxonomists' personal preference. In the vast 
> majority of species descriptions, no species criteria are specified. Unlike genera, describing species without molecular support appears acceptable.
> Species criteria (e.g. presence of reproductive barriers) are mostly 
> assumed rather than tested in species descriptions. On the contrary, 
> assuming monophyly is deemed to be insufficient by some members of the 
> taxonomic community. The reason for this double standard is puzzling.
> Especially since one might encounter larger difficulties handling 
> synonyms of species than those of genera. Reviewers suggesting not to 
> describe phylogeny-free genera supposedly aim to minimize the 
> subjectivity of taxonomy caused by the never-ending battle of lumpers 
> and splitters. This goal is admirable. However, taxonomy is a science, 
> and all new taxa that are proposed are hypotheses that can be refuted 
> and falsified (Evenhuis 2008). Not always a matter of money Although 
> molecular phylogeny becomes an everyday tool for some proportion of 
> professional taxonomists, it is not available for many researchers due 
> to the lack of funds. Moreover, in Europe, 60 % of new taxa are described by nonprofessionals (Fontaine et al.
> 2012), who have nearly no chance to support their taxonomic decisions 
> with molecular phylogeny. However, the lack of funds and limited 
> access to molecular laboratories explain only a fragment of cases when 
> molecular phylogeny could not be performed. In many cases it is not 
> possible to perform phylogenetic analysis due to a number of other 
> reasons. For example, the absence of specimens in museum collections 
> potentially containing DNA (e.g. empty mollusc shells and wrongly 
> preserved historical specimens; see Jaksch et al. 2016); type 
> localities of species described centuries ago are not precise enough 
> to allow revisiting the original sites; the original sites are 
> destroyed and the targeted species might be extinct in the wild; not 
> to mention fossil taxa, which also need to be placed in the system 
> obviously without molecular support. Furthermore, molecular studies 
> that propose new taxa should also return to morphological characters 
> in light of the molecular phylogenetic trees. More repercussions than 
> merits Genera, irrespective of the fact that they are "old" or "new", 
> are testable hypotheses of monophyletic groups that predict the 
> distribution of characters (Platnick 1979; Wheeler 2004). In the 
> absence of molecular support, I cannot see a good scientific reason to 
> prefer existing genera over new genera. The action of placing a species into a genus irrespective of being named or not, is a hypothesis of the species'
> evolutionary history. Describing new, morphologically well-defined 
> genera is not "unnecessary splitting", but small steps towards 
> understanding evolutionary relationships of organisms. Forcing 
> classification of new species into already named genera could have 
> more repercussions than merits. It would, for example, result in 
> unnecessarily "dumping" of species into well-defined genera, the 
> reduction of diagnostic apomorphic characters in morphologically 
> defined groups. Such practice will turn a well-defined genus into a 
> wastebasket taxon, which may, for instance, create artificial 
> biogeographic "connections" between areas. Taxonomy and systematics 
> faces several challenges in the 21st Century, and the naming of new 
> genera without phylogeny is certainly not the biggest of these. For 
> instance, incorrect identification of specimens used for molecular studies (Nilsson et al. 2006; Groenenberg et al. 2011), taxonomic inflation (Isaac et al.
> 2004; Harris & Froufe 2005), and DESCRIBE GENERA WITHOUT MOLECULAR 
> PHYLOGENIES? Zootaxa 4232 (4) © 2017 Magnolia Press · 595 the 
> increasing gap between phylogeny and classification (Franz 2005) are 
> much more serious problems. On one hand, phylogeny provides us with a 
> powerful tool to hypothesise evolutionary relationships. On the other 
> hand, since the world's biodiversity is largely unknown (some 86% of 
> non-marine eukaryotic species are unknown; Mora et al. 2011) and the 
> number of taxonomists is decreasing (Bebber et al. 2014; Wheeler 
> 2014), it is not yet the time to regulate morphology-based grouping of 
> species. Instead of criticising their well-trained, professional 
> expertise (gleaned through years of intense study), we should invest 
> more trust in the taxonomic evaluations of the decreasing number of 
> taxonomists as well as allow more freedom for morphology-based 
> grouping. Especially, given that if someone wants to describe 
> something, he/she can find a way to do so in local, small non 
> peer-reviewed journals or self-published books. One-sided critiques 
> emphasising only the taxonomic value of molecular assessment could 
> well result in the weakening trust of taxonomists (mostly the ones not 
> dependent on impact factors) in peer-reviewed journals, which is 
> already a major problem in today's taxonomy. Morphology is still what 
> makes the organism a tangible entity beyond its DNA. Necessary changes 
> in the review process What we need, is better editorial practice. To 
> overcome this recent trend, I suggest considering the following 
> points: (1) Authors have to justify their conclusions clearly with 
> their data. Also, if the reason is other than no access to molecular 
> laboratory and funds, they should state the reason why molecular 
> phylogeny is not performed. (2) Editors need to understand the 
> hypothesis-driven nature of taxonomy, systematics and phylogeny, and 
> need to be able to ignore reviewers who do not engage the subject. (3) 
> Reviewers should refrain from rejecting the description of new genera 
> on the basis of the lack of molecular data. Instead, they should be 
> critical of poorly defined genera, no clear gaps in the morphological continuum, overlapping character states across genus-group taxa, and genera awaiting descriptions based on non-conventional morphological characters.
> (4) Taxonomic journals could state whether they allow, discourage or 
> prohibit descriptions of taxa above species level without molecular 
> phylogenetic support. On one hand, this would allow the authors to 
> prepare to the nature of reviews, and choose journals where the lack 
> of sequence data will not result in changing the proposed taxonomic 
> decisions. On the other hand, this would create a rather harmful 
> division in how journals deal with taxonomic submissions.
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.
>
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.