[Taxacom] Two million molecular synonyms on the way

Mon Feb 15 21:30:53 CST 2021

Lyubo, apologies if you interpret the discussion as a personal attack on
Pensoft, it is not. In fact, in private discussions I have mentioned an
article published by your journal as a good example of good integration (
https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.9.e59892). Their written diagnoses could have
been shorter but the combination of barcodes, rich imaging and written
diagnosis should be the norm. Anybody who reads this article, regardless of
their background, can use it.

Now, it is good to see that there is an ongoing discussion within Pensoft
and the recommendations you list are a useful springboard, on which I would
like to make the following comments:

“*Types and taxonomically important specimens. *

…*.*

*Strongly recommended: Type specimens should be deposited in a publicly
accessible collection. “ *

This should be mandatory for the holotype within a sensible timeframe, in
particular if the intention is to streamline descriptions.

“*Differential diagnosis. *

*...*

*Strongly recommended: Include all relevant congners [sic] and cite the
reference taxonomy being followed, so that others can see which species
have been considered.” *

-I would make the reference taxonomy mandatory to reduce the ambiguity that
is coming our way. We need to know which definitions other researchers are
using.

“*Strongly recommended: Consider presenting the differential diagnosis in a
table, if long lists of differences and/or species are included.” *

-I like this, this is a sensible recommendation, it simplifies descriptions
and makes the information more accessible to all (also imaging already
covers most of the morphologically descriptive part anyway) but it needs to
apply to BC-species as well, at least to a rough species-group, but see
below.

“*Morphological description. To the extent accepted as a minimum standard
in the respective taxon group, so that to provide the diagnostic evidence
that the species is new. Rich illustrative material including images,
drawings, and where possible microCT should be included.*

...

*DNA-only descriptions. Given some controversies and criticism related to
"DNA-only" descriptions, such descriptions could be considered only in
special cases, e.g. in a necessity of streamlined descriptions of multiple
new species in megadiverse, poorly studied taxa with strong record on the
informativeness of DNA barcodes (deep divergences) and correlated external
features shown on rich illustrative material.*

*Mandatory: Rich illustrative material (photos, drawings) of the voucher
(type) specimens and morphological details important for the identification
of the taxon under study (microCT or others). “*

...

*Strongly recommended: Morphological descriptions are to be included in
"DNA-only" descriptions as well, whenever possible.”*

A distinction is being made with DNA taxonomy, but I think it is unnecessary
inasmuch as there is a broad overlap. Many have commented already that long
worded descriptions are unnecessary and you already provide the option of
tabulated diagnosis. This would have made a world of a difference to both
papers. In addition, and in view of the articles, it is necessary to
tighten the definition of “Rich illustrative material (photos, drawings) of
the voucher (type) specimens and morphological details important…” because
these articles did not meet the criteria for diagnosability nor
illustrations. I understand that it is early days and this is all “learn as
you go” but if you want to avoid breaking taxonomy there needs to be an
entente. It is incumbent on the B-coders to integrate their descriptions
with +250 years of taxonomic work and that the only way to do that and not
clog the system is to provide the needed information in an easily
digestible form.

In light of this, the fact that the style of plates in figures 1 & 2 were
not required for all 400+ species, as a minimum description, should be seen
as an unfortunate oversight. The provided images are insufficient and if
somebody has to slog through this in the future, it is the authors’
obligation to make it at least possible. Also this article needs to be
useful to the vast majority of researchers outside of the BOLD bubble who
will not be barcoding their mounted material or unsorted samples. That is
why emotions are running high. It is not that the work is “garbage”, it is
that they make it very difficult for others to interpret/verify it, which
damages the basic tenet of peer review. Do we want to go back to the time
when species were described with minimal information or scrutiny simply
because the authors were the experts and were assumed to know what they
were doing? As John said, we shouldn’t judge the opinion based on the
perceived authority of the person but on the quality of the arguments and
that requires sufficient data.

I am all for speeding descriptions, and it is obvious from examples such as
the Freitag article I provided at the beginning, that in the very near
future (10 years until the cost is similar to a good stereomicroscope) it
will be possible to get barcodes as easily and affordably as present day
microscopy, but if the difference between proper work and slapdash is fivefold
versus tenfold current rates of descriptions, the latter is preferable.
Otherwise Carlos’ and Jean’s comments, though harsh, will come to be and we
will be faced (the rest) with the thankless task of cleaning a taxonomic
mess, or worse, a taxonomic Tower of Babel.

Best

J

On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 04:54, Lyubomir Penev via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> John,
>
> Well, the meaning of my rhetoric question woudn't change if I used
> "renown", "well experienced" or so. These are the people you would most
> probably contact if you have a student who wants to get training in
> braconid taxonomy, or if you need to identify braconids for the purpose of
> your own studies. If they accepted to support the paper, this most probably
> means they have a specific knowledge about the taxon gained during all or
> most of their career. I do not want to speak for them, opinion my own.
>
> Otherwise, I agree of course that criticism coming from outside small
> scientific communities is not just helpful or desirable but much needed!
>
> Best regards,
> Lyubomir
> ----
> Prof. Dr. Lyubomir Penev
> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2186-5033
> WoS ResearcherID: O-9982-2019
> <https://publons.com/researcher/324250/lyubomir-penev/>
> Founder and CEO
> Pensoft Publishers <http://pensoft.net>
> ARPHA Journal Publishing Platform <http://arphahub.com>
> 13a Geo Milev Street
> 1111 Sofia, Bulgaria
> Tel +359-2-8704281
> Fax +359-2-8704282
> Publishing services for journals <http://arphahub.com/about/services> I
> Journals <http://journals.pensoft.net> I Books
> <http://pensoft.net/books-published-by-Pensoft>
> Services for scientific projects <http://pensoft.net/projects>
> Find us on: Facebook
> <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pensoft-Publishers/170816832934216?ref=ts>,
> Google+
> <
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/114819936210826038991/114819936210826038991/posts
> >,
> Twitter  <https://twitter.com/#%21/Pensoft>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 8:07 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Lyubomir,
> >
> > With respect to your rhetorical question:
> >
> > "As taxonomy is concerned: the "garbage" has been supported by several
> > top braconid taxonomists, some of them as co-authors, and some as
> > reviewers. Perhaps they know what they are doing in their group of
> > interest?"
> >
> > I would note that the ever present danger for any science involving a
> > relatively small group of participants is that of a shared viewpoint that
> > may not have any relation to "knowing what they are doing". I emphasize
> > that this danger is applicable to taxonomy or any science in general,
> > including my own (in fact some of the best and most critical feedback has
> > come from outside the research program).
> >
> > Also, what makes a "top taxonomist" as opposed to a less than 'top'
> > taxonomist? Prolific does not necessarily equate to quality.
> >
> > Cheers, John Grehan
> >
> >
> >> .
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>