[Taxacom] General call to collaboration

[Richard Pyle]

Hi Adam,

As I have commented in other threads, I don't think "ease with which specimens can be identified" is a legitimate criterion when considering what does, and does not, constitute "good taxonomy" (my words).  If we agree that "cryptic species" is a thing (and not just a device to beef-up one's resume with spurious species descriptions), then we may be very close to the world in which field biologists will distain species that are diagnosed on the basis of morphological characters, rather than DNA sequences.  I imagine that ubiquitous smart-phone-based "tricorders" -- which could extract a sequence in the field in real time -- are not much more than a decade or so in the future (USB sequencers already exist).

Cataloguing biodiversity is not important just for us or for our predecessors, it's important for the entire future of humanity.  I'd like to believe that such a future is much greater in timespan than the past (if we take the 1750s as the start).  But certainly the number of species yet to be described is greater than the number that has been described already.  So I think it's increasingly defensible to say that DNA sequences play a critical role in the future of cataloguing biodiversity (i.e., the majority of biodiversity).

Just to be clear, I have a problem with new species descriptions based only on DNA characters (barcode or otherwise).  This is not because I distrust the DNA; rather I distrust our unwarranted confidence that we really know how to interpret and translate genomic patterns into patterns comparable to what was done during the first 250 years of cataloguing biodiversity.  Those first 250 years were characterized by almost exclusive use of morphology.  Eventually, a few decades or so from now, we'll understand genomic information well enough that it will completely replace morphology as the tool for diagnosing species.  We're in early part of the transition between these two paradigms, so it's entirely understandable that debates arise while we try to figure it all out.

I'm hoping that the transition is done gracefully, rather than too abruptly. And I think these sorts of discussions are helpful in that regard.

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE
Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252
eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
BishopMuseum.org
Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through the exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of
> Adam Cotton via Taxacom
> Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2021 1:34 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] General call to collaboration
> 
> 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.