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

[Stephen Thorpe]

 Rich,You are clearly advocating for DNA-only descriptions (with some reservations yes, but ultimately in favour). Good for you, but I think it is a bad idea. DNA sequences and morphology are NOT equivalent for the purposes of taxonomy. Theoretically, they may be, if we were to start de novo, but it would obviously be preposterous to throw out more than 2 centuries of accumulated taxonomic knowledge. Because morphology has been of primary importance up to now, it simply must remain that way, with sequencing playing a supporting role only. As I said, molecular taxonomists are inevitably going to have to ignore many existing species names which lack associated sequences.Cheers, Stephen
    On Tuesday, 16 February 2021, 02:22:07 pm NZDT, Richard Pyle via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:  
 
 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 

_______________________________________________
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.