Taxacom: Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst, 1829

[Michael A. Ivie]

While I am not a convert, can we restart this conversation by 
recognizing we have a problem?  I have discovered (collected and 
curated) a couple to several thousand new species of beetles and other 
things in my career, but have managed to describe a couple dozen, and 
colleagues have added a couple dozen more.  I suspect I am pretty 
representative of 69 year old systematists with an active field 
program.  If our goal is to distinguish and share information of the 
type in this new paper, where they describe "158 new species and host 
records for 129 species," the approach those who work like I do is 
simply not going to work.  I will die with thousands of new species, 
their associations and characteristics still hidden from the people of 
the tropical countries where I obtained them.  Don't we have to discuss 
how our current system is failing to achieve our goals?  Isn't Sharkey 
et al challenging us to face this?  If we don't want to follow their 
path, don't we have to propose something equally effective rather than 
just blast them for not doing it our (admittingly failing) way?  I 
suggest that for ever criticism, an alternative be proposed.

Mike

On 8/30/2023 8:52 AM, Thomas Pape via Taxacom wrote:
> **External Sender**
>
> Dear Carlos,
>
> I suppose you will count me as one of "the commissioners who have tolerated this", so I better provide some initial comments.
> The ICZN is currently working painstakingly on a revised version of the zooCode. Admittedly, we are not fast, but we firmly believe that this total overhaul is needed and that it is better than a hasty and piecemeal approach.
>
> We should indeed be concerned, but as also stated by Rod, we should be concerned about how to best deliver our taxonomic product. This certainly includes a critical assessment of our requirements for proposing scientific names, i.e., the Code, and the Commission strongly encourages input from you and other taxonomists. So, rather than "just sit here and contemplate the devastation", we need you to bring suggestions on how you think we can advance taxonomy and how we can improve the Code.
>
> New technologies bring new possibilities, and we need to consider how to deal with molecular data in a nomenclatural context. Exactly for that reason, the ICZN published a paper where we advocate for a tightening of the definition of “species diagnosis” in future editions of Codes of bionomenclature (https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.plos.org%2Fplosbiology%2Farticle%3Fid%3D10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.3002251&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ca5a9ad6f01394f2e59f808dba9731a6d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290084052582107%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WJYDg096SuyzoluuHKGM%2BU3fircJV8F1sIRHbqBEkSY%3D&reserved=0). In botany, a special-purpose Committee has been working on the pros and cons of accepting DNA sequences as name-bearing types (https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2F10.1002%2Ftax.12931&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ca5a9ad6f01394f2e59f808dba9731a6d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290084052582107%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3HwvyFbNlRUcy4JHK1zg4Qt%2BkvVQuh4Kv4i8B5oM8qs%3D&reserved=0).
>
> For the particular paper that brought up this discussion, all the new species have holotypes, which are in good condition, are documented by standard images, and are available on loan (or for in situ study). Could this be better? Yes, absolutely, and given time we may see molecular and morphological data coming together. In a nomenclatural context, "due diligence" is to discuss the relevant Articles. Does a consensus barcode comply with Article 13.1.1? Should a morphological diagnosis be mandatory? Must a diagnosis be diagnostic? How does this improve taxonomy?
>
> /Thomas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz via Taxacom
> Sent: 30. august 2023 10:10
> To: Taxa com <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Taxacom: Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst, 1829
>
> 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%7Ca5a9ad6f01394f2e59f808dba9731a6d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290084052582107%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3W9TGoFKS5G3xUKKh410mfjZ%2FEK35vRN5CxlOxOOwQE%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%7Ca5a9ad6f01394f2e59f808dba9731a6d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290084052582107%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wzJ1pfeDzx06P9Qk4Zt%2FVRL3Xq8OPnsYbnwFYB8R34Y%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for about 36 years, 1987-2023.
> _______________________________________________
> 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%7Ca5a9ad6f01394f2e59f808dba9731a6d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290084053050858%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yc0gYRv2tqFqScc2VggSiM%2BqKZdmSITWkUxy04D1KR0%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for about 36 years, 1987-2023.

-- 
__________________________________________________

Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.

NOTE: two addresses with different Zip Codes depending on carriers

US Post Office Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
PO Box 173145
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA

UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59718
USA


(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu