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

[JF Mate]

I like this diagnosing scale! I can’t decide where I lie on it exactly, but
I guess I am on number 3 because I suspect that there are limitations with
BCs, like with any other source of data, but I think that once everybody
has access to the technology (or at least in the same ballpark as access to
a microscope) the extent of the mismatch will become clearer.

As for the authors, they appear at face value to be solidly on number five,
but as Stephen has mentioned, they use morphology when BCs stop working and
they extensively use other phenotypic data as well so they are probably
closer to four in spite of the title.

Stephen, I don’t think that pointing out the parallels between genotype
descriptions/data and phenotypic ones means being on one side or the other.
If anything, it shows that BC-only descriptions are likely to suffer the
same methodological biases inherent in humans.


Best


Jason

On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 12:40, Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

>  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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>