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

[John Grehan]

Hi Les,

Below some comments for what they are worth or not.

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.

If 'whatever designator they like' then why not DNA?

But they should not call those organisms with
different barcodes new species, and name them, and expect the names to be
Code compliant.

But if I understand the discussion so far, as long as the documentation
meets code requirements then it will be code compliant just as much as any
morphological designation. And if not code compliant then they are just no
code compliant. Whether they are biologically valid is of course a separate
question.

They have no idea whether they are separate species or not.

But this is true of morphology as well. Just finding a morphological
difference does not automatically biologically validate as proposed species.

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).

But often enough this situation is true of morphologically defined species
where the whole population is never assessed, just a subsample, and
sometimes just a single specimen (guilty of that myself).

 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.

So your view is that unless one carries out a detailed study of the
biological circumstances and relationships among populations one should not
propose new species. That is certainly a valid viewpoint. But there is also
the viewpoint that such studies are usually impossible or impractical and
so prefer to name new species nevertheless.

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.

Perhaps so. I can sympathise (as one who is a morphologist taxonomist) but
that's life sometimes.




>