[Taxacom] Describing genera without molecular phyolgies

Tue May 26 22:36:27 CDT 2020

Ken, yes it would be nice if a group of entomologists got together to
clean up the mess and developed a phylogeny as Forshagge suggested.
That was the topic of my PhD around the time when Dellacasa et al went
bonkers. The problem though is that a phylogeny doesn´t fix splitting.
Any discrepancy will be solved by
further splitting, if needed by making most or all genera monospecific
(which is what they have been doing, see below). I have been working
on it for decades by continuously adding taxa but the splitting
continues unabated so coverage is never enough. Only when the
community decides that it has to stop do you have a chance but it will
be determined solely by usefulness, and in my mind the point was
reached long ago, simply based on the numbers.

In my latest count (my database has not been updated for some time)
there are circa 1900 species and almost two hundred genera (what used
to be Aphodius and a dozen other small genera. Half (97) of these
genera have three or less species assigned to them, 57 have only one
species. That is the scale of the mess and it has grown even further
since my last thorough update (2013). The rest of the Aphodiinae is
also a mess (c. 1400 species
and 125 genera) but somewhat less so, whereas the Scarabaeinae, the
sister clade to the Aphodiinae, a far better researched group, with
numerous phylogenies and over 5000 species has 260 or so genera, even
when some groups such as Canthonini have been split repeatedly. The
end result is that there are genera where a female on its own cannot
be confidently assigned to genus, many cannot be identified without
rather specialized dissection and only a few can be identified by
habitus. So when John pasted the article I couldn't help but agree
with reviewer number two and his/her assertion that egos are being
satisfied by this explosion in categories.

Best

Jason

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 10:51, Kenneth Kinman via Taxacom
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>         I definitely agree that adhering to strict phylogenetic monophyly has created a lot of problems (in its attempt to totally eliminate paraphyly), including nomenclatural instability (which, as you point out, negatively affects biodiversity studies and actions).
>         As for describing taxa without molecular phylogenies or based solely on them, the results vary depending on the kind of organism being studied and at what taxonomic level.  Molecular phylogenies have greatly clarified the relationships of bird Orders, such as Falconiformes (sensu stricto) being unrelated to other raptors.  So many convergences in morphology and behavior.   Order Cathartiformes (New World vultures) unfortunately got thrown in with Ciconiformes for many years due to some poor molecular data, but that mess was finally resolved by better molecular data.
>       I suspect that molecular data would also provide some surprises for more speciose taxa, such as those beetles in Aphodiinae.  And extinction has done far less pruning of many insect taxa than it has in a lot of vertebrate taxa.  So the successes of strict cladists and molecularists for vertebrates at higher taxonomic levels don't always have as much success at the lowest taxonomic levels (especially speciose taxa).  So, yes, I am worried too.
>       Premature nomenclatural changes are too often done based on limited data.  A total evidence approach by a team of workers (evaluating different data) would be preferable in most cases.
>                                      ----------------Ken
>
> ________________________________
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Richard Zander via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 5:09 PM
> To: 'Richard Pyle' <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>; 'JF Mate' <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>
> Cc: 'Taxacom' <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Describing genera without molecular phyolgies
>
> I appreciate the comments of Lynn Raw and Richard Pyle. They mention important concerns.
>
> Richard Pyle wrote:
> I consider myself a classical taxonomist, and I'm not worried.  Who is worried?  Are you worried?
>
> Well, yes, I am worried.
>
>  For two reasons: (1). Biodiversity analysis requires decent classifications. Nowadays, environmental protection of molecularly cryptic species gets more attention in the news than protection of whole ecosystems. Following strict phylogenetic monophyly, species, genera, and even families are commonly either sunk to synonymy or invented without reasonable evolutionary evaluation. Making predictions for the expected vast changes in floral and faunal composition is now difficult because of the sea of rapidly changing nomenclature that lumps disparate taxa or splits taxa into unmanageable units.
>
> And (2): Systematics is supposed to be a science. But it has always been vulnerable because mathematics and statistics are not reputed to be a strength of taxonomists. I think "innumerate" is the term often used for us. Phylogenetics is replete with bad statistics. Sampling is a joke, with say 5 or 10 exemplars of a species being considered a lot. Evolutionary scenarios from different data sets (morphology and DNA) are compared with Bayes Formula, instead of Bayes Factors. Accuracy is rejected in favor of precision. Dichotomous trees of cluster analysis are accepted as models for analysis. Molecular studies substitute clades of molecular strains of species for actual species, when (or perhaps because)  the last might require much additional sampling, assuming many information-bearing strains are not extinct. "Shared ancestors" are considered by some cladists to be interspersed in a cladogram without actually modeling these (e.g. where are their autapomorphies? Do they reverse and disappear?).
>
> I am worried for biodiversity analysis in an era of climate crisis and for any remaining respect for systematics as a science. I do not say that phylogenetics is a shuck and a scam, or that it is a 30-year Lysenko-level perversion of science. If true, then that would be more than just worrisome.
>
> Richard Zander
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 7:44 PM
> To: Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>; 'JF Mate' <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>
> Cc: 'Taxacom' <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Describing genera without molecular phyolgies
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> > Richard Pyle wrote "modern technology and biological insights have
> > dramatically improved our ability to infer phylogenetic relationships
> > of organisms; and one could also (rightly) argue that this leads to legitimate rejiggering of prior classifications."
> > Not so. Modern classification should reflect evolutionary relationships.
> > Phylogenetics does not model evolution."
>
> So, your primary point of disagreement is that I used the expression "phylogenetic relationships", instead of "phylogenies"???  If so, then sure -- consider my sentence amended to:
>
> "modern technology and biological insights have dramatically improved our ability to infer phylogenies of organisms"
>
> Note that I never said or even intended to imply that we're in any way closer to inferring evolutionary relationships.  Although I think a pretty powerful case can be made for that assertion as well.
>
> I'm pretty-much in agreement with everything else you wrote.  I just tend to be a little less grumpy (and less self-confident) about it.
>
> > I am sorry to see classical taxonomists still worrying over the
> > ascendancy and hegemony of phylogenetics.
>
> I consider myself a classical taxonomist, and I'm not worried.  Who is worried?  Are you worried?
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.