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

[Richard Pyle]

Hi Ross,

 

> - Entire Genomic Sequencing versus genome sample sequencing

> - Mitochondrial DNA considerations v Genomic DNA

> - Homogenized DNA from several individuals, as mentioned elsewhere 

> here, or a Type series ie distinct unique individual sequences not amalgamated (which is nonsensical IMO)

> - The need for any DNA based description and nomen to be 

> linked to a secure Type specimen and not some amorphous and 

> merely asserted (untestable) Base Sequence code repository.

 

Would you agree that all four of these have exactly the same equivalents for morphologically-based descriptions?  To wit:

 

- Describing every single morphological character versus a subset of morphological characters

- Osteological considerations vs. coloration vs. morphometrics vs. meristics (etc.)

- Summaries of morphological characters from several individuals to form a consensus diagnosis

- The need for any morphology-based description and nomen to be linked to a secure Type specimen and not some amorphous and merely asserted (untestable) set of morphological characters

 

If you assert that such parallels do not exist or are false equivalencies, I’d like to understand why you think so.

 

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: Ross Wellington <rwrossco at gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 1:50 PM
To: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
Cc: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; iczn-list at afriherp.org
Subject: Re: [iczn-list] [Taxacom] GENERAL CALL TO BATTLE

 

There are a huge number of issues and expansions on the discussion points raised here.

 

 

Type Specimen based species nomenclature is and should remain fundamental to the basis on which a species is defined and named IMO, DNA characterization or not.

 

But even this has its problems as already there have been examples of shenanigans with institutional Types being fiddled with and/or replaced (Neotype) on sometimes spurious grounds or are arguably invalidly assigned (inconsistent with original description or inappropriate location). So photographic repositories of Types (existing and new) on which nomen are based should be mandatory or at least a priority.

 

But that last issue aside the DNA issue immediately at hand must also deal with:

 

- Entire Genomic Sequencing versus genome sample sequencing

- Mitochondrial DNA considerations v Genomic DNA

- Homogenized DNA from several individuals, as mentioned elsewhere here, or a Type series ie distinct unique individual sequences not amalgamated (which is nonsensical IMO)

- The need for any DNA based description and nomen to be linked to a secure Type specimen and not some amorphous and merely asserted (untestable) Base Sequence code repository.

 

The list goes on and on

 

Regards

 

Ross Wellington