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

[Richard Pyle]

I dunno, Stephen:

 

> I'm just applying it to the particular case of 

> DNA-only descriptions to illustrate that no taxonomy 

> is involved, it is just someone saying "hey taxonomists, 

> I'm giving whatever taxonomic entity includes this DNA 

> sequence the name Aus bus, so you are going to have 

> to take it into account if you do any future taxonomic 

> work on the group". 

 

On what basis are you attributing this to DNA-only descriptions, and not morphology-based descriptions?  What if I wrote:

 

“I'm just applying it to the particular case of morphology-only descriptions to illustrate that no taxonomy is involved, it is just someone saying ‘hey taxonomists, I'm giving whatever taxonomic entity includes this morphological character the name Aus bus, so you are going to have to take it into account if you do any future taxonomic work on the group’.” 

 

How is that different, exactly?  You might reply, “Because I can see morphological characters with my eyes”.  And then I would reply, “Yeah, but lots of those characters – especially in insects -- require special technology (e.g., microscopes) to see”.  And then you might say, “No, no, everyone has access to a microscope, but not everyone has the ability to extract DNA sequences.”  And then I would come back with “Yeah, but how much longer will that be true?” And then we’d probably go back and forth a few more times, then one of us would eventually give up and go back to doing other work.

 

Or something like that.

 

> It leaves the taxonomist with no morphological 

> clues as to the species so named, so I suggest 

> that it is nothing but big problem for taxonomy! 

 

So… I’ve been actively involved with this debate going back to the very early days of PCR.  The basic argument is this:  “Almost nothing of value for taxonomic or phylogenetic research exists in morphology that does not also exist *somewhere* in the genome.”  For two and a half centuries, taxonomists were (and still are) using morphological characters as proxies for genetic information (whether they knew/know it or not).  By this I mean that, as taxonomists, we work with characters that are inherited across many generations of the taxa we study, and try to ignore characters that depend on environmental factors or ontogenetic factors or other life-history-related stuff (e.g., males vs. females, etc.).  I can imagine 10 or 20 or 50 years from now taxonomists looking back at this era and being impressed with how good we were at using these crude proxies (phenotypes) as metrics for elucidating evolutionary relationships, despite our handicap of not having access to full genomes within seconds using our iTricorders.

 

I’ve said this before, and I’ll reiterate here:  Some of my posturing on this debate is very-much playing the role of devil’s advocate.  I actually consider myself “old-school” when it comes to my own taxonomic practice – relying almost exclusively on morphological characters for my new species, and adding in DNA information (usually barcodes) only as one more line of evidence supporting my taxonomic decisions.  But here’s the thing:  I feel this way not because I don’t believe that DNA will ultimately prove to be *the* basis of future taxonomy (it inevitably will). Rather, at this particular point in history I don’t think we’re quite “there yet” in our ability to interpret DNA evidence for anchoring our taxonomy as effectively as we are/have been with morphology.  This is obviously changing (rapidly), but that change as applied to taxonomic practice will need to be graceful (not abrupt) to transition the 250+ year legacy of morphology-based taxonomy to DNA-based taxonomy.

 

> This problem could be avoided if the Code 

> were to prohibit DNA-only descriptions.

 

No, not really.  More the opposite, I think.

 

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

 <http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html> 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: Sunday, February 14, 2021 10:04 AM
To: 'Francisco Welter-Schultes' <fwelter at gwdg.de>; iczn-list at afriherp.org; Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
Cc: 'Taxacom' <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [iczn-list] GENERAL CALL TO BATTLE

 

Rich,

 

"This is how the Code works for *all* names, going back to Linnaeus, and long before DNA was even known to exist.  This is what typification is all about"

 

Yes, I know that! I'm just applying it to the particular case of DNA-only descriptions to illustrate that no taxonomy is involved, it is just someone saying "hey taxonomists, I'm giving whatever taxonomic entity includes this DNA sequence the name Aus bus, so you are going to have to take it into account if you do any future taxonomic work on the group". It leaves the taxonomist with no morphological clues as to the species so named, so I suggest that it is nothing but big problem for taxonomy! This problem could be avoided if the Code were to prohibit DNA-only descriptions. The Code would not thereby be meddling in taxonomy because there is no taxonomy involved in DNA-only descriptions! The Code would simply be prohibiting one process by which names can be proposed in a way that can negatively impact on taxonomy.

 

Cheers, Stephen

 

On Monday, 15 February 2021, 08:50:43 am NZDT, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org <mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> > wrote: