[Taxacom] [iczn-list] GENERAL CALL TO BATTLE

[Les Watling]

I find this whole business of naming taxa on the basis of DNA sequences
very disturbing. If conservationists really need some name for some
organism that they found that has not been described they can use whatever
designator they like. But they should not call those organisms with
different barcodes new species, and name them, and expect the names to be
Code compliant. They have no idea whether they are separate species or not.
And anyone coming along later may or may not ever find that sequence again.
Has anyone ever looked to see if there is a whole population of organisms
with the same genetic sequence? How often has that been done? I suspect
most surveys grab only a few specimens of each of the DNA "species." At
least that is the case for the groups I know best (not insects, however).

In our work we often use the designator "morphospecies" for specimens that
look different in some morphological feature. We have no idea whether that
represents variation or a truly different species. Sometimes the gene
sequences we are using are the same over all the specimens,
encompassing all the variability in morphology, but other times, there is
some genetic variation to go along with the morphological variation. People
like to call those "cryptic species," and maybe they are, but maybe they
still represent variation. We can't know unless something can be done to
see whether there is reproductive capability with the production of viable
offspring, etc., you know, the old biological species concept. But maybe
that has gone out the window, too.

I know that I am old-fashioned, and at the long end of my career, but I
think the molecular folks are pushing this naming business a bit too fast.
It all reminds of the phylocode of a decade or two ago. Naming every
clade... but now we have different methods for clade production so maybe we
have to rename all the clades... and on it goes. Yes there are issues with
the Linnaean system, but it has the advantage of stability, and for the
most part good rules, and yes, there are serious problems with having to
pay attention to what was done by early biologists, 100 or more years
ago... I know that because I spend a moderate amount of time straightening
out those problems. But still, once solved, future biologists have a
moderately solid foundation on which to act.

Best,
Les






Les Watling
Professor, School of Life Sciences
216 Edmondson Hall
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Honolulu, HI 96822
Ph. 808-956-8621
Cell: 808-772-9563
e-mail: watling at hawaii.edu






On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 1:00 PM <taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> Daily News from the Taxacom Mailing List
>
> When responding to a message, please do not copy the entire digest into
> your reply.
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: General call to collaboration (Richard Pyle)
>    2. Re: [iczn-list] GENERAL CALL TO BATTLE (Stephen Thorpe)
>    3. Re: [iczn-list] GENERAL CALL TO BATTLE (Thomas Pape)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2021 13:04:11 -1000
> From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> To: "'Adam Cotton'" <adamcot at cscoms.com>
> Cc: "'Taxacom'" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] General call to collaboration
> Message-ID: <00c201d7025c$8c1aeaa0$a450bfe0$@bishopmuseum.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="utf-8"
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2021 04:46:30 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> To: 'Francisco Welter-Schultes' <fwelter at gwdg.de>,
>         "iczn-list at afriherp.org" <iczn-list at afriherp.org>,  Richard Pyle
>         <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> Cc: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] GENERAL CALL TO BATTLE
> Message-ID: <432882194.1525455.1613277990554 at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>
> Rich,OK, so we are lurching towards an understanding of the issues here.
> Let's run with what you have said and examine the consequences for DNA only
> descriptions. Your view, as I understand it, is that a DNA only description
> attaches a new name to an individual organism, by way of it's DNA sequence.
> This is pure nomenclature, with no taxonomy involved, right? It is
> effectively the same as someone publishing a list of specimens and
> proposing a new name for each of them, thus forcing future taxonomists to
> consider those names if they propose a new taxon which includes one of
> those specimens. I strongly suggest that doing this should be avoided at
> all costs, because it actually makes the "taxonomic impediment" worse, not
> better! For a taxonomist revising a group, the simplest scenario is if
> there are no pre-existing names in the group under revision. Then the
> taxonomist can simply propose new names without having to consider previous
> work. Anyone who simply proposes new names for specimens, via DNA
> sequences, serves only to complicate and slow down the taxonomic revision,
> forcing the taxonomist to track down and examine all those type specimens
> based only on DNA sequence. I see this as a very bad thing!Cheers, Stephen
>   On Sunday, 14 February 2021, 11:15:09 am NZDT, Richard Pyle <
> deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
>
>  #yiv1036031739 #yiv1036031739 -- _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {}
> _filtered {}#yiv1036031739 #yiv1036031739 p.yiv1036031739MsoNormal,
> #yiv1036031739 li.yiv1036031739MsoNormal, #yiv1036031739
> div.yiv1036031739MsoNormal
> {margin:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv1036031739 a:link,
> #yiv1036031739 span.yiv1036031739MsoHyperlink
> {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1036031739
> p.yiv1036031739msoplaintext, #yiv1036031739 li.yiv1036031739msoplaintext,
> #yiv1036031739 div.yiv1036031739msoplaintext
> {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv1036031739
> span.yiv1036031739EmailStyle26
> {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv1036031739
> .yiv1036031739MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered {}#yiv1036031739
> div.yiv1036031739WordSection1 {}#yiv1036031739 _filtered {} _filtered {}
> _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered
> {} _filtered {} _filtered {}#yiv1036031739 ol
> {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv1036031739 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv1036031739
> Hi Stephen:
>
>
>
> > A DNA sequence is a property of an individual organism, not a species.
>
>
>
> Yes, of course!  And under the ICZN Code, a name is linked to a type
> specimen, not a species.  It’s an issue of taxonomy, not nomenclature, as
> to how to extend the application of a name beyond the type specimen(s).
>
>
> https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2005075
>
>
>
> > I very much doubt that one can set an across the board
>
> > percentage difference, within which different sequences
>
> > correspond to the same species
>
>
>
> I *completely* agree!  And the exact same thing applies to metrics of
> morphology when distinguishing species.
>
>
>
> > If a species is defined solely by DNA sequence
>
>
>
> I was focusing my points in the context of nomenclature, not taxonomy.
> The idea of “defining species” is in the realm of taxonomy.
>
>
>
> This underpins my problem with Art. 13.1.1 – it’s one of the main points
> of the Code that dabbles in taxonomy.  Let me give another example of what
> I’m getting at here:
>
>
>
> Suppose that the description/definition stated in words (Art. 13.1.1) is
> not accurate with respect to the name-bearing type specimen (e.g., states
> that the elephant’s skin is pink, when in fact the type specimen’s skin is
> actually grey).  I’m pretty sure that everyone would agree that the type
> specimen is what the name is associated with, not the words that fulfill
> Art. 13.1.1.  I’m also pretty sure that in such cases, the name is still
> regarded as available under the Code (Art. 13.1.1 does not require that the
> words describing or defining the taxon to differentiate it be accurate –
> only that they exist – as suggested by the word “purported”).
>
>
>
> This is the key point I have been trying to make here:  in the context of
> the ICZN Code, the objective link between a name and biological reality is
> the name-bearing type specimen(s).  Once that is understood, the
> requirement of Art. 13.1.1 serves no legislative function in associating
> the name with a taxon, as this occurs via the designated type specimen(s).
> In effect, the requirement of Art. 13.1.1 is meant to enforce a
> “convenience” factor in the work establishing a new name for a taxon – that
> is, saving the reader the trouble of examining the type specimen directly.
> This is obviously HUGELY important in the history of taxonomy!  But the
> “bar” for fulfilling Art. 13.1.1 is so low that from a legislative
> perspective, it has essentially no value (NOT to be confused with the
> taxonomic value, which again is at least potentially huge).  So, yes:  a
> robust description or definition that states in words characters purported
> to differentiate the taxon is a hallmark of good taxonomy.  But it is out
> of place in the context of nomenclature.
>
>
>
> This does NOT mean that I think we should necessarily abandon the
> requirement.  But at the moment, it does little to help with either the
> legislative process of nomenclature or the encouragement of “good”
> taxonomy.  But it does seem to trigger a lot of noise in the form of
> disagreement and debate.  The cost-benefit ratio of Art. 13.1.1 is very
> low.  We should either eliminate it entirely from the next edition of the
> Code, or re-frame it in a way that it serves some meaningful value for
> either nomenclature, or taxonomy, or (Ideally) both.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 5:52 PM
> To: 'Francisco Welter-Schultes' <fwelter at gwdg.de>; iczn-list at afriherp.org;
> Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> Subject: Re: [iczn-list] GENERAL CALL TO BATTLE
>
>
>
> Rich,
>
> There are serious potential problems here. A DNA sequence is a property of
> an individual organism, not a species. Theoretically at least, a mutation
> can change a base at any location (or at least many locations), but it
> doesn't change the species. I very much doubt that one can set an across
> the board percentage difference, within which different sequences
> correspond to the same species. At best, DNA sequences can be used to help
> to identify species, but should not be used as the defining basis for a
> species. If a species is defined solely by DNA sequence, then it is useless
> for further studies into its ecology, behaviour, etc., until somebody links
> the sequence to a differential morphological diagnosis, so nothing is
> gained by naming the species based solely on DNA sequence. Define it by
> morphology and by all means chuck in the DNA sequence, but the latter, by
> itself, is useless for most practical purposes.
>
> Cheers, Stephen
>
>
>
> On Saturday, 13 February 2021, 04:17:07 pm NZDT, Richard Pyle <
> deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Just a couple of additional points here:
>
>
>
> First, it's important to note that Art., 13.1.1. calls for "...a
> description or definition..." [emphasis added].
>
>
>
> As Francisco notes, the definitions of both these terms are in the
> glossary:
>
>
>
> definition, n.
>
> A statement in words that purports to give those characters which, in
> combination, uniquely distinguish a taxon
>
>
>
> description, n.
>
> A statement in words of taxonomic characters of a specimen or a taxon
>
>
>
> I raise this because sometimes people focus only on the definition of what
> constitutes a “description”, and ignore the fact that an alternative to
> providing a “description” that states in words characters that are
> purported to differentiate the taxon, Art. 13.1.1 is to instead provide a
> “definition”.
>
>
>
> So, consider the following example of a published work attempting to
> establish two new species-group names:
>
>
>
> Aus bus, n.sp.
>
> Diagnosis: Consensus barcode: “AGTCAGTC…[etc.]”
>
>
>
> Aus cus, n.sp.
>
> Diagnosis: Consensus barcode: “AGTCAGTT…[etc.]”
>
>
>
> In the above two treatments, I would interpret “Consensus barcode” as a
> character, and the sequences themselves (AGTC…etc.) as the character state.
> Or, alternatively, one could argue that each position in the sequence is a
> different character, and one of “A”, “G”, “T”, C” would represent the
> possible character states.
>
>
>
> I’m fairly persuaded that the requirement of “in words” is met in these
> examples. One might be able to argue that neither represents a
> “description”, but I believe that legitimate argument can be made that a
> “definition” (sensu Code glossary) has been provided.
>
>
>
> But I think the real ambiguity is, how much is required in order to be
> interpreted as “purported to differentiate the taxon”?  If the above
> example included a statement somewhere in the published work, “the
> consensus barcode values for these two species are different from each
> other” – is that enough?  Or is that even necessary – could it be
> self-evident that the presentation of the two sequences are different, and
> as presented therefore purport to differentiate the taxon?  Or, would the
> statement need to explicitly say “Aus bus can be differentiated from Aus
> cus on the basis of different barcode sequences”?  Or maybe even that would
> not be enough – perhaps the statement would need to explicitly say “the
> consensus barcode of Aus bus differs from that of Aus cus in positions 8,
> x, x, [etc.]”?  Or maybe even that is not enough – perhaps the statement
> would need to be “the consensus barcode of Aus bus differs from that of Aus
> cus in that position 8 of the former is C, and the latter is T [etc.]”?
> Or, maybe even that is not enough, and the only way for Art. 13.1.1 to be
> fulfilled would be to compare consensus barcodes for every other known
> species in the genus?
>
>
>
> Anyone who claims to have the “right” answer in the sense of the ICZN Code
> reveals a misunderstanding of the Code.  There is no “right” answer,
> because the word “purport” is not defined in the Code.  How explicit does a
> statement need to be in order to “purport” to differentiate a new taxon?
> Moreover, does it require a comparison with specific other taxa (e.g., “Aus
> bus differs from Aus cus…”), or is it sufficient to say “Aus bus differs
> from all other known taxa…”?  Or is such an explicit statement not even
> necessary, because it’s clearly implied?
>
>
>
> I think we have two challenges in dealing with this in the next Edition to
> the Code:
>
>    - Deciding what the rule should be; and
>    - Crafting language that unambiguously articulates that rule.
>
>
>
> 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: iczn-list <iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org> On Behalf Of Francisco
> Welter-
>
> > Schultes
>
> > Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 4:19 PM
>
> > To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; iczn-list at afriherp.org
>
> > Subject: Re: [iczn-list] GENERAL CALL TO BATTLE
>
> >
>
> > Stephen,
>
> > I did not say more than that the definition for the term "description"
>
> > should not be contained in Art. 13.1.1, but in the Glossary. This action
> as such
>
> > would not change the content.
>
> >
>
> > A description in the sense of a description of a new zoological nominal
> taxon is
>
> > a differential description. Saying "the new elephant species is grey" is
> not a
>
> > description in this sense, because previously described elephant species
> are
>
> > also known to be grey, this would not distinguish the taxon. A statement
> "the
>
> > new elephant species is pink" is a description in this sense because
> taxonomists
>
> > with expertise in the concerned group will know that all previously
> described
>
> > elephant species were not pink, this would be the first one known.
>
> >
>
> > The Code cannot demand "that the description actually does differentiate
> the
>
> > species adequately". The Code can only demand the presence of such a
>
> > description. The content of the description is taxonomy. The attribute
>
> > "differential" must be judged by the community. Names with insufficient
>
> > descriptions - if subsequent authors provide evidence for it - are not
> available.
>
> >
>
> > The splitter (actually any zoologist who discovers cryptic species,
> distinguished
>
> > only by DNA) has indeed a problem. Usually they would discover cryptic
>
> > species in the DNA record and then look again more closely on the taxa
> and
>
> > discover differences.
>
> >
>
> > There will be a public review period of one year where comments to the
>
> > Code-5 draft and suggestions for improvements will be solicited.
>
> >
>
> > Cheers
>
> > Francisco
>
> >
>
> > Am 13.02.2021 um 01:32 schrieb Stephen Thorpe:
>
> > >   Francisco,It is presumably obvious, but just in case, I feel that I
> must point
>
> > out that the consequences would be disastrous if there were a
> requirement on
>
> > the availability of names that the description actually does
> differentiate the
>
> > species adequately! That would mean that for any species which a
> taxonomic
>
> > splitter considers to be more than one species (based on "cryptic species
>
> > complexes", for example), the existing name would be thereby rendered
>
> > retrospectivelt unavailable!!Cheers,Stephen
>
> > >      On Saturday, 13 February 2021, 01:04:33 pm NZDT, Francisco Welter-
>
> > Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > >   Just a short response to this thought expressed by Rich:
>
> > >
>
> > > Am 12.02.2021 um 19:27 schrieb Richard Pyle:
>
> > >> I think you perfectly captured my own concern about Art. 13.1.1 in
> that, as
>
> > currently written, it’s effectively toothless and empty.  I guess I
> would put it
>
> > this way:  it is incredibly easy to fulfill this requirement in a
> taxonomically
>
> > useless way, yet by some interpretations, it is also incredibly easy to
> fail this
>
> > criterion while still providing and incredibly robust description of a
> new taxon.
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >> My feeling is that the next edition of the Code should either make
> this
>
> > requirement much more specific and explicit, or abandon it entirely.
>
> > >
>
> > > This problem has been detected earlier in the course of the ongoing
>
> > > work on the Code revision. The term "description" should be defined in
>
> > > the Glossary, and in Art. 13.1.1 we would only need to say that a new
>
> > > name needs a description. I we intend to retain that.
>
> > >
>
> > > This procedure would, of course, just forward the basic problem
>
> > > discussed here to the definition in the Glossary.
>
> > >
>
> > > The term "purported" is not very well understood in the community. The
>
> > > French Code (which is equivalent to the English Code) does not use
>
> > > this term, there the Code just says "characters that allow to
>
> > > differentiate the taxon". One of the objects of the Code revision is
>
> > > to align the English and the French Code.
>
> > >
>
> > > Best wishes
>
> > > Francisco
>
> > > _______________________________________________
>
> > > iczn-list mailing list
>
> > > iczn-list at afriherp.org
>
> > > http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > iczn-list mailing list
>
> > iczn-list at afriherp.org
>
> > http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2021 17:35:57 +0000
> From: Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
> To: "iczn-list at afriherp.org" <iczn-list at afriherp.org>, Taxacom
>         <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] GENERAL CALL TO BATTLE
> Message-ID: <f7090a52a85148dc8284225fe0693644 at snm.ku.dk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Carlos,
>
> Evidently, we disagree.
> (1) The zoo-Code is NOT a scientific standard.
> (2) None of the provisions of the zoo-Code should restrict the freedom of
> taxonomic thought or actions.
> (3) Every scientist is free to classify animals according his or her
> taxonomic judgment.
>
> /Thomas
>
> From: Admin Admin <archilegt at gmail.com>
> Sent: 14. februar 2021 17:51
> To: Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
> Cc: iczn-list at afriherp.org; Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [iczn-list] GENERAL CALL TO BATTLE
>
> Hi Thomas,
> Thank you for your reply. Unlike you, I maintain that "purported to
> differentiate the taxon” cannot be achieved if comparison with all the
> currently known taxa has not been made. It does not matter how many species
> are described from maggots or adults only. It does not matter how many
> times the fallacious claim of "new" was made. What matters is:
> 1) Determining who was the first in making the fallacious novelty claim
> and expanding the system towards the new set of characters and character
> states, e.g., a life stage and its characters, detached from the life stage
> that was previously used as reference. I assume that the author who did
> this was not the author who first described both life stages, but a later
> author who decided that lack of logical comparison would not stop him/her
> from describing a taxon and claiming it as "new". Authors like Meierotto,
> Sharkey, and van Achtenberg.
> 2) Determining when the fallacious novelty claim was first made. Stopping
> and reversing such claims can be done as long as stability and universality
> are not affected. In the case of "revolutionary methods" which are less
> than two years old, the fallacious claims of novelty can be stopped without
> affecting stability and universality, now, today. However, may such a
> practice be allowed to continue, the current system of names will be
> overwritten with a multiplicity of synonyms.
> I cannot speak for other communities, but the myriapodological community
> would not have the capacity to absorb the impact of molecular names and the
> hit will overwhelm us. We are still mopping the nomenclatural and taxonomic
> vandalism that Karl Wilhelm Verhoeff and Ralph Vary Chamberlin left behind
> decades ago. And yes, by now we are quite sure that they were vandals.
> Cleaning the mess of synonyms takes considerable effort and funds.
> I remind you that there are quite a few country-level sequencing efforts
> which could generate thousands of "new" species names within the next five
> to ten years. Isn't that their stated objective? If the Commission or some
> commissioners continue to consider fallacious claims of novelty as
> available under the Code, they will be responsible for the desolation that
> those new synonyms will cause. And those of us who live today will die
> before we can mop the dirty trail of the barcoders. It will take several
> decades, if it ever gets done. The commissioners must also consider the
> almost immediate decline that widespread adoption of the new methods and
> fallacious claims will cause in the already reduced and overburdened
> taxonomic community. Some taxonomists will quit out of frustration. Others
> will be considered obsolete and their positions closed when they retire.
> Others may even be forced by their institutions to follow the trend and
> produce thousands of new molecular names. The Commission is underestimating
> the seriousness of this problem. You must step back from "the highly
> pedantic interpretation of the Code" (something along Rich's wording) and
> bring some common sense in.
> The Commission and commissioners may not be able to fix all logical
> fallacies, especially the old ones based on morphology, but you can
> certainly prevent new fallacies from happening or expanding, especially the
> ones based on barcodes. If your concern about consistency is bigger than
> the upcoming devastation, then split the procedures and limit availability
> of new molecular names through the use of the Plenary Powers, until we can
> put an amendment in place, and until we can formalize mandatory diagnoses
> in the Code 5.
> Again, the Code is a scientific standard and as such fallacious illogical
> claims of novelty have no place under it.
> Kind regards,
> Carlos
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 8:17 PM Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk<mailto:
> tpape at snm.ku.dk>> wrote:
> Dear Carlos,
>
> You mention that you expect a literal answer to your literal question:
> >>> if the commissioners understand logic or not.
> The literal answer is: Yes, they do.
>
> Let me also make clear, that there is no risk that:
> (1) “a molecular paper could claim priority over their own published names”
> (2) “there won't be a chance for integrative taxonomy under the current
> Code”
> (3) “the Commission allows names to be overwritten”
>
> >>> the logic on when a novelty claim is spurious
> In a nomenclatural sense, the following is recognized as explicit intent
> to establish a new nominal taxon:  “Zelomorpha angelsolisi Meierotto, sp.
> nov.”
>
> What is at stake, and what I find both interesting and challenging, is how
> to interpret Article 13.1.1 when only molecular data is provided. Every new
> name published after 1930 must be accompanied by (or point to) a
> description or definition that states in words characters that are
> purported to differentiate a taxon. Like this one from the paper by
> Meierotto et al. (2019):
> ---------------------------
> Molecular diagnosis
> Nucleotides 43–45 TTA, 54–57 CTTT, 75 G, 136–138 GTG, 165 T, 321 G, 417 G,
> 462 G, 477 C, 561 G, 684 G.
> ---------------------------
> Given the information also provided by Meierotto et al. (2019), I read
> this as an explicit listing of attributes (i.e., specific nucleotides at
> specific positions), which purport to differentiate the taxon from other
> taxa with which it is likely to be confused.
>
> I see attributes, and I see purport to differentiate.
>
> I fully understand your concern, that it is meaningless to differentiate a
> taxon based exclusively on molecular data from a taxon for which we do not
> have any molecular data. But that does not change the fact that the name
> was “accompanied by a description or definition that states in words
> characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon”.
>
> When I describe a species of fly from an adult holotype based on
> morphology, I cannot differentiate this species from those species that are
> described from maggots only.
>
> I am very well aware, that Article 13.1.1 was written with no thoughts of
> molecular data, but we cannot use that as an argument for non-compliance.
>
> All of this is decoupled from my opinion on taxonomic impediment,
> scientific quality, etc.
> It is strict nomenclature as interpreted from the current Code, and
> whenever we see shortcomings in the way Articles are written, we should
> discuss possible improvements for the next version.
>
> /Thomas
>
>
> From: Admin Admin <archilegt at gmail.com<mailto:archilegt at gmail.com>>
> Sent: 11. februar 2021 14:52
> To: Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk<mailto:tpape at snm.ku.dk>>
> Cc: iczn-list at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list at afriherp.org>; Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [iczn-list] GENERAL CALL TO BATTLE
>
> Dear Thomas,
> My wording is literal and the questions are meant to determine if the
> commissioners understand the logic on when a novelty claim is spurious. No
> one can purport to differentiate when available characters, descriptions,
> specimens, etc., are neglected on purpose, which is what Meierotto et al.
> (2019) did. I remind you that Sharkey claimed several times that he saw
> types and had notes, which he also neglected to use. What I see here is a
> severe author bias in favor of molecular characters, when the same author
> has expert knowledge on morphology and access to comparative specimens. And
> before Michael Sharkey can cry on the rock of the "taxonomic impediment",
> he shall first explain why dozens of species that are very well described
> and documented since 2006 in a very long thesis remain unpublished. I do
> not see that he has used all the resources he had at hand to lower the
> "taxonomic impediment".
>
> In the case of your species, if you provide a diagnosis/discussion in
> which you explain that you are working on another sex or another life
> stage, you "purported to differentiate". What you cannot do is to use a
> whole new set of characters and neglect the morphological ones, when you do
> have the morphological ones at hand. So, no, I assume that you purported to
> differentiate and that your case does not apply to Meierotto et al. (2019).
>
> I still expect a literal answer to my literal question, because it is
> essential for this community to know if the commissioners understand logic
> or not.
>
> Now I am going to tell you who is lowering the taxonomic impediment: the
> myriapodological community. All the new taxa of Myriapoda and Onychophora
> from last year are already databased. We maintain FIVE databases, for
> years: The Onychophora Website, ChiloBase 2.0, MilliBase (successor of
> SysMyr), MyriaLit and Myriatrix. We maintain mailing lists, we maintain a
> Facebook group, we store and share literature, we make good descriptions
> and good diagnoses, and we do integrative taxonomy as well. Now, if someone
> expects me to tell my community that a molecular paper could claim priority
> over their own published names, and that a molecular paper could strip them
> off from priority over the species that they are working right now, that
> person is expecting too much. If I tell them that there won't be a chance
> for integrative taxonomy under the current Code, well, you may rest assured
> that the community around two branches of the Tree of Life will detach
> itself from the current Code. Other communities will follow, for sure. We
> cannot give morphological and integrative taxonomy a chance if the
> Commission allows names to be overwritten and names to be produced without
> diagnosing from the previous. Your choice.
>
> Cheers,
> Carlos
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 2:36 PM Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk<mailto:
> tpape at snm.ku.dk>> wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
> You ask the Commission:
>
> >>> Can anyone claim that 15 species in one genus (Zelomorpha) are new
> >>> when they know that there are 52 other species
> >>> but they only diagnosed the 15 "new" among them and from the type
> species,
> >>> while neglecting other 51 species on purpose?
>
> As this is a question to the Commission, I take it to mean:
> “Would those 15 new names be available under the ICZN?”
>
> This would depend on the exact wording, but if each of those 15 names were
> “accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters
> that are purported to differentiate the taxon”, then the names would be
> available given that all other requirements were fulfilled.
>
> I have myself described new species of the large flesh fly genus
> Sarcophaga, knowing that there are at least 20 nominal taxa in that genus,
> which are based on either a female or a maggot, or where the type material
> is lost and the description useless. I cannot say whether or not my new
> species are conspecific with any of those. I may have various reasons that
> conspecificity is ‘unlikely’, but I usually do not make those explicit. But
> I always provide “a description or definition that states in words
> characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon”.
>
> /Thomas
>
>
>
>
> From: Admin Admin <archilegt at gmail.com<mailto:archilegt at gmail.com>>
> Sent: 11. februar 2021 10:48
> To: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org<mailto:
> deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>>
> Cc: Mallet, James <jmallet at oeb.harvard.edu<mailto:jmallet at oeb.harvard.edu>>;
> iczn-list at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list at afriherp.org>; Thomas Pape <
> tpape at snm.ku.dk<mailto:tpape at snm.ku.dk>>; Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [iczn-list] GENERAL CALL TO BATTLE
>
> Hi Rich,
> "As you noted in an earlier post, diagnoses are useful for differentiating
> a new taxon from previously existing taxa."
> Read both diagnoses and descriptions, because they are meant to achieve
> the same, with a different length. And they are not meant to be "useful",
> they are meant to be methodologically sound, DIFFERENTIAL from the
> previous, and SUFFICIENT.
>
> "They are somewhat less useful with respect to as-yet unnamed taxa."
> That depends on how detailed the diagnoses/description is. And they do NOT
> have to be differential and sufficient (even less "useful") from
> yet-unnamed taxa, because that does not affect the core Principle of
> Priority. It is not previous taxa which should be demonstrably different,
> but new taxa which should be demonstrably new. Additionally, remember that
> we already have molecular species with equal barcodes that got finally
> diagnosed and splitted into two on the basis of non-molecular characters.
> So, barcodes are also not the universal panacea and morphology continues to
> play a role, especially for authors with apparent "hyperdiversity goals".
>
> "One could easily argue that an image or a barcode is vastly more useful
> than a text diagnosis because both are more likely to contain information
> about characters that will help distinguish the new species from both
> previously known *and* as-yet unknown species."
> You continue to use "vastly", which is a particular judgement of value
> from your side. The word "vastly" is mentioned ZERO times in the Code. You
> continue to use "useful", which is not a qualifier that we are discussing
> here. The word "useful" is mentioned ONCE in the Code, in the preface to
> the Fourth Edition, which is NOT part of the Code proper. What we are
> discussing here is the methodological obligation to diagnose differentially
> and sufficiently from the previous. That is not achieved by CHARACTERIZING
> with pictures and barcodes. That is achieved by practicing the
> methodological exercise of DIAGNOSING, i. e., COMPARING. A methodologically
> sound comparison contains equal, shared elements among the taxa compared.
> This is achieved, for two species, by making reference to the genus. A
> methodologically sound comparison contains differential elements which are
> not shared among the taxa compared. This is achieved, for two species, by
> presenting the sufficient diagnostic character state of the new species, or
> the combination of characters which combined provide a sufficient,
> differential diagnosis. Regarding "yet-unknown" species, again I remind you
> that the Code is framed with the Principle of Priority and not with a
> "Principle of Futurity".
>
> "One could easily argue"
> As per the explanation above, your easy argument has been easily nullified.
>
> "What is more powerful: a text description that my new species has a
> longer snout than that other species?  Or an image of both snouts, without
> any text commentary?"
> Apply the same reasoning that I applied to "useful". You can use it as a
> particular judgement of value from your side, but it is mentioned ZERO
> times in the Code. Apply the rest of my previous argument. This is not
> about "useful" and "powerful". This is about the methodological obligation
> to diagnose differentially and sufficiently from the previous.
>
> "Or in the case of DNA barcodes, which is more powerful:  a text
> description that “my new species differs from that other species on the
> basis of 27 differences in the barcode sequence”; or simply providing the
> two barcode sequences without any commentary on the differences?"
> The former will give you both the barcodes AND the comparison, and it will
> achieve SUFFICIENCY and DIFFERENTIATION FROM THE PREVIOUS. The latter is
> inadmissible on methodological grounds, because it fails to exercise
> COMPARISON and therefore DIAGNOSIS. You continue equate CHARACTERIZING with
> DIAGNOSING, but it is only the latter which methodologically satisfies the
> PURPOSE OF DIFFERENTIATING.
>
> Now Rich, as I provided the context of Meierotto et al. (2019), and as I
> have provided profuse methodological explanations, I am going to repeat my
> direct question to you (and to all the Commissioners): Can anyone claim
> that 15 species in one genus (Zelomorpha) are new when they know that there
> are 52 other species but they only diagnosed the 15 "new" among them and
> from the type species, while neglecting other 51 species on purpose? Can
> someone claim that those 15 species are new? Do you support that claim? Was
> letting that claim pass a reviewer and an editorial mistake or not?
> Please, do not attempt to dodge my direct question this time. Not you, not
> the other Commissioners. I am very much looking forward to your answers.
>
> I will proceed by explaining what is going to happen if the Commission
> fails to stop the ongoing nomenclatural vandalism and if it fails to
> declare the recent fallacious claims of novelty unavailable under article
> 13.1.1 of the Code.
> First, the Commission will be failing in securing an organized transition
> from one diagnostic character set to another. Second, the Commission will
> be failing to recognize the necessary role of integrative taxonomy during
> the transition time, which is meant to secure that 250+ years of
> morphological knowledge for 10% of the species is integrated into the
> upcoming, molecularly diagnosed 90% of species.
> As the Commission will fail to the broader taxonomic community, those
> particular taxonomic communities who disagree on having their morphological
> knowledge overwritten by a parallel molecular nomenclatural system will
> split apart from the current ZooCode. I will assist those communities
> myself, and I am sure that many more taxonomists with good knowledge of the
> Code will respond to the call of duty. Community after community, we will
> abandon consensus and we will regroup together. The Commission and the
> molecular taxonomists who want to stay will be left with the "Molecular
> Code of Zoological Nomenclature", and the rest of us will build consensus
> about the same Code, the "Integrative Code of Zoological Nomenclature". We
> will form a new Commission, arbitrarily set the publication date of
> Meierotto et al. (2019) as 31 December 2019, and arbitrarily set 30
> December 2019 as the date of the split of the broader taxonomic community.
> We will adopt the current Code, we will declare unavailable those molecular
> works which fail to differentiate from the previous, and we will strengthen
> Article 13.1.1 and secure a period of integrative taxonomy and a smooth
> transition to molecular diagnoses. The Integrative Code will rule over 100%
> of the described species, except for ca. 500 molecular Hymenoptera species.
> If the Commission thinks that the broader taxonomic community is going to
> sit and watch how our names are overwritten and how our corpus of knowledge
> disregarded, you are very much mistaken.
>
> Kind regards,
> Carlos
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 8:14 AM Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> <mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>> wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> Thank you for the expanded explanation of where you are coming from on
> this.  What you say makes sense, even though I disagree with some of your
> positions. Also, I think I was not clear in the point I was trying to
> make.  I’ll continuing playing the role of devil’s advocate.
>
> As you noted in an earlier post, diagnoses are useful for differentiating
> a new taxon from previously existing taxa. They are somewhat less useful
> with respect to as-yet unnamed taxa. With something like 90% of
> biodiversity in the latter category (i.e., as-yet unnamed), we’re kidding
> ourselves if we think that some sort of textual word-based assertion of
> character differences with the already-known 10% of taxa someone improves
> the “robustness” of a new species description.
>
> One could easily argue that an image or a barcode is vastly more useful
> than a text diagnosis because both are more likely to contain information
> about characters that will help distinguish the new species from both
> previously known *and* as-yet unknown species.  Sure, the text diagnosis
> might accidentally include characters or combinations of characters that
> hep distinguish from future new species.  But there’s a reason I was always
> taught to examine the types of known species – to make sure that the suite
> of characters I’m using to distinguish my new species are legit (and not
> missing from the previous text diagnosis of the previous species, or based
> on differences in measurement techniques, or whatever).
>
> What is more powerful:  a text description that my new species has a
> longer snout than that other species?  Or an image of both snouts, without
> any text commentary?  Having only the words tells us only about the
> relative snout length. Having the images shows us that, in a potentially
> quantifiable way, and probably shows us a whole bunch of additional
> characters that might prove useful for distinguishing my new species from
> future as-yet unknown species.  Or in the case of DNA bar codes, which is
> more powerful:  a text description that “my new species differs from that
> other species on the basis of 27 differences in the barcode sequence”; or
> simply providing the two barcode sequences without any commentary on the
> differences?  In the latter case, the differences are self-evident from
> simply comparing the two sequences. And so are he positions of the
> differences.  And so are all the other positions in the entire barcode for
> comparing to as-yet unknown future species.
>
> Sure, the best thing to do would be to show the pictures *and* point out
> the differences *and* provide the sequences *and* identify, using words,
> which positions of the sequence differs.  That’s good (better) taxonomy, of
> course.  But the point is that, a compelling case can be made that
> providing the raw data (hence allowing for comparisons with future species)
> is superior than explicit statements about specific characters that happen
> to distinguish a new species from previously described species.
>
> I hope it’s clear that I’m not trying to say your wrong.  In fact, I
> personally agree with a lot of what you say (though not all).  I just want
> to illustrate that a “call to battle” might be a bit overkill on this
> issue; and instead a reasoned discussion about alternative approaches to
> establishing new species.
>
> Above all, I do not want to discourage these debates – quite the
> opposite!  Now is *exactly* the time to be having these discussions,
> because the ICZN very much wants to get input on what the community would
> like to see in the next (5th Edition) of the Code.  The Code is not for the
> benefit of the Commission; it is for the benefit of all taxonomy, biology,
> science, humanity, etc.  It’s important to come up with a Code that both
> respects historical practice and accommodates trends that apply to the
> future (and the other ~90% of the world’s species that are yet to be named…)
>
> 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<mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> BishopMuseum.org<
> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhbs.bishopmuseum.org%2Fstaff%2Fpylerichard.html&data=04%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7Cef4007a4313f4070fc8b08d8d108af04%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637489182791161186%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=Nycx5MQrjqIfU3xTn9baf4yz7IAGU6YIh7jLbS4VNCg%3D&reserved=0
> >
> 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.
>
> From: Admin Admin <archilegt at gmail.com<mailto:archilegt at gmail.com>>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 4:27 PM
> To: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org<mailto:
> deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>>
> Cc: Mallet, James <jmallet at oeb.harvard.edu<mailto:jmallet at oeb.harvard.edu>>;
> iczn-list at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list at afriherp.org>; Thomas Pape <
> tpape at snm.ku.dk<mailto:tpape at snm.ku.dk>>; Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [iczn-list] GENERAL CALL TO BATTLE
>
> Uppercase letter used for stylization of text and not for shouting
>
> So here came Rich with a "one-line morphological diagnosis":
> Rich: “my new taxon differs from that other existing taxon in that mine
> has a longer snout”
> Well, yes, that is a methodologically correct DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS,
> which hopefully is also SUFFICIENT to differentiate both taxa in question.
> And it does fulfill "the requirement that authors must describe in words
> the characters purported to differentiate the taxon when proposing new
> names". And it also fulfills the logical requirement of "differentiating
> from the previous", in this example the previous taxon with the shorter
> snout.
>
> WHAT IS NOT A DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS:
> 1) A "high-resolution photograph of the type" per se
> 2) A "DNA barcode of the type", when there are no barcodes for the vast
> majority of congeneric species and a comparison with the previous species
> is not made
>
> THIS IS A PROBLEM OF DEFINITION:
> <Rich>"the latter two are"</Rich>   NOT   <Rich>"VASTLY more useful in
> diagnosing the taxon"</Rich>   because CHARACTERIZING IS NOT DIAGNOSING.
>
> More about diagnoses:
> 1) Morphological diagnoses do NOT stand in the air. They stand within a
> classification, and they inherit the characters of the upper hierarchies.
> So, Scolopendra morsitans inherits the characters of Arthropoda, Myriapoda,
> Chilopoda, Scolopendromorpha, Scolopendridae and Scolopendra, unless
> otherwise stated at the species rank or above. That is ANCHORING.
> 2) Authors are meant to create a SUFFICIENT diagnosis for a given taxon,
> shorter or longer, which purports to differentiate that taxon from the
> closely related taxa. In the case of a species, it can be differentiated
> from other species in the genus, or subgenus, or from a smaller aggregate
> of species. That is PURPOSE TO DIFFERENTIATE. Differentiation can be
> achieved by means of just one character state of one character, the
> so-called SUFFICIENT CHARACTER STATE, or it can be achieved by CHARACTER
> STATES WHICH COMBINED ARE SUFFICIENT to differentiate the taxon
>
> This is a one-line diagnosis for Scolopendropsis duplicata: With 39 or 43
> leg-bearing segments. The binomen provides ANCHORING to a genus in which
> all known species have 21 or 23 leg-bearing segments and PURPORTS TO
> DIFFERENTIATE the new species by using the character state “39 or 43
> leg-bearing segments”, which is SUFFICIENT for separating the new species
> from all previously known species in that genus. This can be done because
> the full set of character states of a character has been scored for all
> species in the genus.
>
> What the enthusiasts of barcoding are trying to do is to use an incomplete
> set of character states for one character which has not been scored for all
> species in one genus. And they still pretend to claim priority under the
> Code over the names of new species proposed using that method, even when
> they recognize that additional species exist which have not been
> molecularly surveyed. That means that the purpose of "differentiating from
> the previous" and Article 13.1.1 cannot be considered as satisfied, unless
> that we all suddenly become blind to logical fallacies. Something cannot be
> claimed to be "new" and "differentiated" when a comparison has not been
> made. Amusing that I have to explain this.
>
> If and only if a full set of barcodes is completed for a given group, the
> logical fallacy will exist no more, as all species would have a full set of
> barcodes, and new species could be DIFFERENTIALLY AND SUFFICIENTLY
> DIAGNOSED FROM THE PREVIOUS ONES. Taxa with full sets of barcodes could
> migrate to barcode diagnoses.
>
> Differential barcode diagnoses do not pose a major methodological problem.
> In Myriapodology, we used the methodology already EIGHTEEN YEARS AGO, for
> mitochondrial 16S RNA, because yes, not everything in this world is COI.
> Undoubtedly, this is just one of many options. And I very much encourage
> everyone to read that paper and see how the diagnostic nucleotide changes
> for each species were summarized in figure 5, page 520.
> -----------------------
> Molecular diagnosis of putative Anadenobolus species
> Nucleotide substitutions that are diagnostic for each species were
> determined using the character trace function in the computer program
> MacClade (Maddison and Maddison 2000). Because we are only interested in
> three nodes that are found in all recovered trees (see Results), tree
> choice was unimportant. Therefore one of the most parsimonious trees was
> chosen at random from the set of all equally parsimonious trees reported in
> Bond and Sierwald (2002b, fig. 2). All nucleotide substitutions were
> plotted onto this tree using the ‘Trace All Changes’ function with the
> ‘Unambiguous Changes Only’ option selected. Only those character-state
> changes that were non-homoplasious above the node of interest are used to
> diagnose species.
> However, substitutions that appear in other regions of the phylogeny are
> considered (we differentiate between the two below).
> Each species diagnosis lists the character state (nucleotide) followed
> parenthetically by the nucleotide position number. The position number
> refers to the nucleotide position in the fully aligned data set used in
> this study. A reference alignment of all three species is available in
> electronic form on request from the first author and for download at
> http://core.ecu.edu/biol/bondja<
> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcore.ecu.edu%2Fbiol%2Fbondja&data=04%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7Cef4007a4313f4070fc8b08d8d108af04%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637489182791171177%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=nCm3gEWY9NhfxLq2SJoKdmfDl2g2XHu3dSK9IRDJcA8%3D&reserved=0>
> and is also available as Accessory Material from the journal’s website. We
> adopt this approach because the region of 16S sequenced is highly variable
> and is not easily aligned to commonly cited model arthropod genomes (e.g.
> Drosophila yakuba, Clary and Wolstenholme 1985).
>
> Reference: Bond, J. & P. Sierwald. 2003. Molecular taxonomy of the
> Anadenobolus excisus (Diplopoda:Spirobolida:Rhinocricidae) species-group on
> the Caribbean island of Jamaica. Invertebrate Systematics 17 (4):515-528.
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253260124<
> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F253260124&data=04%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7Cef4007a4313f4070fc8b08d8d108af04%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637489182791171177%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=mXFad1T%2FKHVIxMxcypOYPh4GSbsXmo9uc%2FeyXsQD%2FiQ%3D&reserved=0
> >
> -----------------------
>
> And before someone brings up the topic, diagnoses are short descriptions
> and descriptions are expanded diagnoses. However, given the apparent lack
> of logic and methodology that has brought us to this historically low
> point, it would be advisable that SUFFICIENT, DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSES are
> made mandatory as soon as possible, in an Amendment to the Code, to prevent
> that the purpose of differentiating from the previous continues to be
> vandalized. It would also be most advisable to set an example by declaring
> recent fallacious claims of novelty unavailable under article 13.1.1 of the
> Code.
>
> Kind regards,
> Carlos
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 3:19 AM Admin Admin <archilegt at gmail.com<mailto:
> archilegt at gmail.com>> wrote:
> The phrase means nothing else to me than its literal meaning. And as I
> cannot sleep, I will proceed to explain one of the methodological problems
> that is causing all this and that is also present in the previous email by
> Rich.
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 3:07 AM Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> <mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>> wrote:
> > “Good people on both sides!” Now where have I heard that before?
>
> Yup... hence my comment about it being "a very notorious statement in
> another context"...
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
> _______________________________________________
> iczn-list mailing list
> iczn-list at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list at afriherp.org>
> http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list<
> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flist.afriherp.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ficzn-list&data=04%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7Cef4007a4313f4070fc8b08d8d108af04%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637489182791181170%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=Ih8NEcSl9JpRrdCd5UNg%2Fvz2LB7vnEOc%2B4v5izltJGg%3D&reserved=0
> >
> _______________________________________________
> iczn-list mailing list
> iczn-list at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list at afriherp.org>
> http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list<
> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flist.afriherp.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ficzn-list&data=04%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7Cef4007a4313f4070fc8b08d8d108af04%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637489182791181170%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=Ih8NEcSl9JpRrdCd5UNg%2Fvz2LB7vnEOc%2B4v5izltJGg%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 178, Issue 9
> ***************************************
>