[Taxacom] General call to collaboration

[Dilrukshan Wijesinghe]

This is such a serious misunderstanding and misrepresentation of taxonomy and systematics that it should not go unchallenged. Taxonomy and biological systematics are not mere services provided by taxonomists/systematists to be used by others or in other disciplines. It does not matter to me that a species described by me or a phylogeny proposed by me never features in an ecological, agricultural, medical or whatever field. Yes, taxonomic research facilitates the identification of different kinds of organisms and enables communication about them, but that is incidental to the primary goal of discovering and documenting biological diversity.

I don’t disagree with the other comments about the need for phenotypically based criteria for describing and diagnosing taxa. We don’t recognize individuals of our own species by barcodes, it is irresponsible for practicing taxonomists/systematists to downplay the importance of the phenotype and especially to promote the use of molecular sequence data (genotype) to the detriment of traditional practice which emphasizes morphology and other phenotypic criteria. 

Priyantha 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 13, 2021, at 6:35 AM, Adam Cotton via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> 
> It seems to me that our discussion both here and on the ICZN list is missing an important point.
> 
> Taxonomists study organisms in order to provide valid names and classifications to other users of those names, such as ecologists, behaviourists etc etc.
> 
> If species a and b only apparently differ in their barcode sequences but are not diagnosed in their original descriptions by any characters visible to those end users of the names those names are not exactly very useful per se.
> 
> Obviously subsequently taxonomists can examine the morphological characters of species a and b very minutely in order to look for constant characters which distinguish them without having to resort to sequencing.
> 
> In this regard a paper naming new species based solely on differences in barcode sequences is useful in pointing out the molecular difference, and asks questions in the minds of other taxonomists working on the same group; but it's not much use to the field biologist who wants to assign the correct name to the species he has found in his habitat.
> 
> One consideration is of course whether or not a male and a female with slightly differing barcodes can/do meet, mate and produce fertile offspring in the wild. Is a small difference in the barcode of one specimen versus another always significant enough to delineate separate species without any perceived morphological difference?
> 
> Adam.
> _______________________________________________
> 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 34 years, 1987-2021.