Taxacom: Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst, 1829

Wed Aug 30 04:38:30 CDT 2023

Hi Carlos,

I’m reminded of Charles Godfrey’s wonderful essay "Taxonomy as Information Science” https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbiostor.org%2Freference%2F250587&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C489e4a8b2d384c7fc52908dba93ce0d3%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638289851176170739%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DbMuuls3%2BNhnOTfWyL0Kgdp03XTLEMgvW8uTup3FVzU%3D&reserved=0 where he writes (p. 174):
A depressing amount of entomological taxonomy, especially in Europe, consists of long and lengthy discussions of this type of taxonomic book-keeping (to avoid this, some of the best taxonomists I know work only in the tropics where they can be biologists rather than archivists).
I think the paper "Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst...” https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevistas.ucr.ac.cr%2Findex.php%2Frbt%2Farticle%2Fview%2F56316&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C489e4a8b2d384c7fc52908dba93ce0d3%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638289851176170739%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1O0%2BBcFwv7xyUaxbAB3I79JaC9bVvzArCvXgWbDrZKI%3D&reserved=0 (the DOI doesn’t seem to be registered yet) makes a reasoned case for “ignoring" earlier work.

By my reading the authors are simply saying that creating 2-3 synonyms for 10 existing names is a small price to pay for being able to document the other species in the large genus in a biologically rich region.

It is a long time since I’ve done actual taxonomy, but I’m sure many researchers are faced with names they can’t place, descriptions that are nearly useless, specimens that are missing (or type series that comprise multiple taxa). At some point we make a judgement call about whether we invest time in resolving this, or put them to one side in the hope that perhaps we can resolve it later (do we want to be biologists or archivists?).

The authors point out that sequencing the Dasch types (if feasible) would be one way to discover whether there are synonyms.

Your statement that “all is set to completely overwrite the current morphological system and names” seems hyperbolic at best. We are in an interesting time where new technologies present new opportunities (and challenges), and we are figuring out how best to proceed (as we do every time new technologies come along and force us to rethink things).

Personally I’m going to re-read Charles’ essay, and ponder how this debate (and others in our field) address his assessment (p. 172) that:
What matters is not only how interesting the question is, the potential extra science that the research may leverage, but how capable the subject is of delivering useful output. I think taxonomy is suffering not because it is any less interesting or important than it was fifty years, but because it is largely failing to deliver.
Regards,

Rod

---------------------------------------------------------
Roderic Page
Professor of Taxonomy
School of Biodiversity, One Health, & Veterinary Medicine
College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences
Graham Kerr Building
University of Glasgow
Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK

Email: Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
LinkedIn: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Frdmpage&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C489e4a8b2d384c7fc52908dba93ce0d3%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638289851176170739%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=L5mjcqJquQng%2BEfkBp%2B%2F%2BeFrmFXndr8x%2BK32%2FD583G4%3D&reserved=0
Twitter: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Frdmpage&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C489e4a8b2d384c7fc52908dba93ce0d3%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638289851176170739%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cvApG0a6MsR0NWgoh5qQsfk49H8d5Bpsmvrmwbn5HVk%3D&reserved=0
Telegram: rdmpage
Blog: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fiphylo.blogspot.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C489e4a8b2d384c7fc52908dba93ce0d3%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638289851176170739%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gOqP2poEvG9yD8AdutgPwc0P2YRoCb%2FdeDKFtM8zTnI%3D&reserved=0
ORCID: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%2F0000-0002-7101-9767&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C489e4a8b2d384c7fc52908dba93ce0d3%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638289851176170739%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=etqeMGC15jfTSQtHBNntPto5rVU2mginKvJkf0zss90%3D&reserved=0
Citations: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.co.uk%2Fcitations%3Fhl%3Den%26user%3D4Z5WABAAAAAJ&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C489e4a8b2d384c7fc52908dba93ce0d3%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638289851176170739%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3%2B1QDx0iYiMt%2FEZqzHA99wJfknzPbG0ShS5TPRK63dc%3D&reserved=0
ResearchGate https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FRoderic_Page&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C489e4a8b2d384c7fc52908dba93ce0d3%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638289851176170739%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=j%2Fxfs%2Bfm1nC1jGLq%2FJUPEsx3tXR2jvhYf9%2Fr%2BFYlsS0%3D&reserved=0
On 30 Aug 2023 at 09:11 +0100, Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>, wrote:
Dear Taxacomers,
For your enjoyment, here is the latest episode of the Meierotto *et al.*
(2019) saga, published six days ago, on August 24, 2023:
Sharkey *et al*. (2023): Minimalist revision of *Mesochorus* Gravenhorst,
1829 (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Mesochorinae) from Área de Conservación
Guanacaste, Costa Rica, with 158 new species and host records for 129
species. *Revista de Biología Tropical*, 71 (S2): 1-174.
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.15517%2Frev.biol.trop..v71iS2.2023&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C489e4a8b2d384c7fc52908dba93ce0d3%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638289851176170739%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=H9JERMaetkujUwJ0px6UsLEXD3BM1GO7AnOA9bducoY%3D&reserved=0

You will enjoy reading through the logical fallacies in the introduction.
But more importantly, this paper contains what I told you and warned you
would happen, since the Meierotto *et al.* (2019) paper, if you failed to
act swiftly and properly. Now it is here. Read:
"Dasch (1974) treated a very small proportion of ACG *Mesochorus* species,
therefore few synonyms will be generated in our current effort which does
not attempt to match his names with Costa Rican specimens."
There you have a primarily morphological system finally openly hijacked by
a parallel taxonomic system which wants to use the naming rules of the
current system for convenience.
"In other words, it is likely that we are generating two or three synonyms
(0.23 x 10) of these Dasch species."
So, a complete disregard for priority and open acceptance of synonym
creation, as I warned four years ago. When things like this can go through
and get published, even when they threaten universality and stability, then
you realize that we don't need a ZooCode anymore. Given that the authors,
reviewers, and editor accepted 23% synonym creation as good, then all is
set to completely overwrite the current morphological system and names, as
the 2 million species described versus 10 million species estimate is just
20%. If we estimate a total of 80 or 100 million species, then creating 2
million synonyms for the existing names goes down to a "negligible" 2%
synonymy threshold. Completely acceptable, isn't it?

To the commissioners who have tolerated this, because of their conflict of
values (not of interest) based on the incorrect assumption that species
need scientific names to be assessed and protected: anyone that has read
through the IUCN Red List methodology knows that this is not true, and
there are countries with legislation in place to protect species even if
they don't have scientific names. You better update yourselves.

By the way, at least one of the species has two original spellings, *Mesochorus
dotres* (which should be declared an incorrect original spelling) and
*Mesochorus
dostres* (the supposedly correct spelling).

Now I will just sit here and contemplate the devastation.

Am I forgetting to emphasise something? Ah, yes: "I told you".

Yours in horror,
Carlos Martínez
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C489e4a8b2d384c7fc52908dba93ce0d3%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638289851176170739%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XOYiDPdEMoPK9hY5AYmZWiX8CJ73cW%2FKuLpul8lmwQs%3D&reserved=0

Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for about 36 years, 1987-2023.