Taxacom: Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst, 1829

Wed Aug 30 14:32:07 CDT 2023

Hi Jim,

I agree with your broader point, but the pedant in me needs to add a quick comment:  a reasonable case can be made that "A", "G", "T" and "C" as presented in a description are "words" in the sense that they are letters that represent words (Adenine, Guanine, Thymine and Cytosine) -- every bit as much as a morphological diagnosis containing "D-XIII,17" counts as an abbreviation for "Dorsal-fin with 13 spines and 17 soft rays".  If abbreviations are not, themselves, "words", then a whole lot of minimalist morphological descriptions over the past two and a half centuries for currently-available and Code-compliant names would be put in jeopardy.

So, I think a strong case can be made that a DNA sequence, when presented in the form of "AGTC...etc.", counts as a "description...that states in words characters purported to differentiate the taxon".

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
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.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Whitfield, Jim <jwhitfie at illinois.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 9:14 AM
> To: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> Cc: Marko Mutanen <Marko.Mutanen at oulu.fi>; Michael A. Ivie
> <mivie at montana.edu>; taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: Taxacom: Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst, 1829
> 
> I think one thing that seems to be missed in the discussion is that, despite
> lacking a morphological diagnosis in words, the species presented in the
> Mesochorus paper do provide a substantial amount of biological information
> (identity of host parasitoid, caterpillar host of primary host parasitoid, host
> plant, plant community in which it is found) plus multiple photos showing
> the morphology, in addition to the barcodes and collection data. It could be
> argued that this combination of information is actually more extensive than
> the earlier descriptions in the group, and more useful to ecologists and other
> biologists. This is not to say it is the perfect solution, but it is not quite so
> minimalist as it may be portrayed as being.
> 
> Jim
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On Aug 30, 2023, at 6:37 PM, Richard Pyle via Taxacom
> <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
> >
> > This is a really great discussion, I think -- and exactly the one that I think
> the field of taxonomy needs right now.  It's rare that the signal:noise ratio on
> Taxacom is as high as it is on this thread! Kudos to all who have chimed in so
> far, on both sides of the debate.  I'm tempted to ramble on as I often do on
> such things, but no one on this list (myself included) has the time for that.
> So just a few comments:
> >
> > As a Commissioner, I *completely* agree with my fellow commissioners
> who have chimed in on this (Thomas and Doug).  I'll add that there are two
> different discussions along these lines, which sometimes get conflated:
> > 1) What are the *existing* rules (i.e., Code-4) in terms of what "counts" as a
> proper " description or definition that states in words characters that are
> purported to differentiate the taxon"?
> > 2) What *should* the rules be going forward (i.e., Code-5)?
> >
> > BOTH of these are relevant, especially as the Commission is preparing a
> draft of the next Code which will be subjected to a minimum of 1-year public
> commentary.  Those of you who subscribe to the ICZN list may have noticed
> my *painfully* long and pedantic post recently on the topic of Art. 13.1.1
> (from which the above quoted passage is taken), so I will NOT repeat that
> here (and will apologize to those who wasted the better part of what would
> have been a productive day reading it).  But my point here is that these are
> different topics of discussion.  My personal feeling is that the existing rules
> are sufficiently ambiguous that the interests of nomenclatural stability are
> best served with a very broad (=liberal) interpretation of the rules, erring on
> the side of "assume it's available unless there is an explicit and unambiguous
> failure to fulfill the Code requirement).
> >
> > The more interesting question, I think, is the one being discussed in this
> thread.  And that boils down to: "What criteria should be established in
> Code-5 for ensuring (or at least encouraging) taxonomic 'quality control'
> when proposing new available scientific names of animals?"  Anyone who
> thinks the answer is obvious simply doesn't understand the nature of the
> problem, and the broader implications of how that question is answered.
> >
> > And this is why I think it's so important that this community (not just
> Taxacom, but the entire taxonomic community) engage in this discussion
> *now*, in *advance* of the release of the draft Code-5.  I say this for two
> reasons:  First, because *now* is the time that the new Code is being
> drafted, and the Commissioners *are* listening to these discussions!  As
> Thomas and Francisco Welter-Schultes and others have noted, the
> sentiments expressed by practicing taxonomists on this and other forums
> (fora?) *are* influencing the nature of that draft Code.  And second, having
> these discussions now definitely will help prime the conversations that will
> come later, when the draft new Code is open to public commentary.
> >
> > Crap.  I really, really, wanted to keep this short (too late), but I had some
> other comments to add.  Nope... not gonna do it.  I'll end it here. Apologies
> for lowering the signal:noise ratio...
> >
> > 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
> > 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.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Marko
> >> Mutanen via Taxacom
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 7:05 AM
> >> To: Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu>; taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> >> Subject: Re: Taxacom: Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst,
> >> 1829
> >>
> >> Precisely, Mike!
> >>
> >> Excellent points by Rod and Thomas too!
> >>
> >> It is so easy to provide criticism instead of solutions. The fact is
> >> that
> >> (traditional) taxonomy is facing a serious crisis as it cannot
> >> provide credible solutions to the taxonomic impediment. The approach
> >> designed by Sharkey and colleagues has huge potential to provide an
> escape from this dead-end.
> >> Their approach may not have seen full maturation yet, but when was
> >> any revolutionary idea fully mature at birth? It already works very
> >> well. Criticism has had all focus on minor issues such as newly
> >> created synonyms (so rarely created otherwise...) and completely has
> >> completely ignored the huge benefits of the approach, both practical and
> conceptual.
> >>
> >> We taxonomists have started describing species of this planet from
> >> the easiest end. After ca 270 years of hard work, perhaps 95-99% are
> >> left. They are gall midges, Nematods, parasitic wasps, microfungi
> >> etc. Groups that each may contain tens of thousands or even over a
> >> million species. As more species are described in any of such
> >> megadiverse groups, the number of required comparisons increases
> >> exponentially, making it all finally impossible to manage. Who
> >> believes that one day we will have a morphological key for one
> >> million gall midge species? I don't. But I believe that one day all
> >> or most of them are described and named, and that then they can
> >> easily be identified by their DNA. Elucidation of their life
> >> histories and connections to other species becomes straightforward
> >> too. The future of taxonomy looks bright if we only would let the field to
> flourish. The future of taxonomy is in DNA and genomics.
> >>
> >> I hope that taxonomic community would recognize that for the survival
> >> of the field, we must find better solutions to the above-mentioned
> >> problems and stop making war. Taxonomy has been poorly funded largely
> >> because it hasn't been able to provide efficient solutions. Sharkey
> >> et al. have made a revolutionary and feasible proposal, and they
> >> would deserve much more appreciation by their peers than what we thus
> far have seen.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> Marko Mutanen
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Michael A.
> >> Ivie via Taxacom
> >> Sent: keskiviikko 30. elokuuta 2023 19.07
> >> To: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> >> Subject: Re: Taxacom: Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst,
> >> 1829
> >>
> >> 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
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Taxacom Mailing List
> >>
> >> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu For
> >> list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> >> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Flists.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom__&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cac1aa3dbcd494a8dca6808dba98fd05e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290207366317204%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FODIbwhWbxBtnupc9ipVnG8wZLkxZv7eE5WPlleOQwQ%3D&reserved=0;!
> >> !DZ3fjg!-_0YmMVJK8WjGS-
> AaivK9q556_EHdgDXhKwjKU5BsKAZnvFBuGhErtrqMwmkx
> >> JWXPVQ1IlzwXpXElcF_WRlT60Mq3g$ 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%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F__%3B!!DZ3fjg&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cac1aa3dbcd494a8dca6808dba98fd05e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290207366317204%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=89BkZhTRFoofr69O4sw0s9%2BmSM0V1jb1n7RMGLMBHzQ%3D&reserved=0!
> >> -_0YmMVJK8WjGS-
> AaivK9q556_EHdgDXhKwjKU5BsKAZnvFBuGhErtrqMwmkxJWXPVQ1I
> >> lzwXpXElcF_WRl-Ir_oow$
> >>
> >> 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://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Flists.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom__&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cac1aa3dbcd494a8dca6808dba98fd05e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290207366317204%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FODIbwhWbxBtnupc9ipVnG8wZLkxZv7eE5WPlleOQwQ%3D&reserved=0;!!
> > DZ3fjg!-_0YmMVJK8WjGS-
> AaivK9q556_EHdgDXhKwjKU5BsKAZnvFBuGhErtrqMwmkxJW
> > XPVQ1IlzwXpXElcF_WRlT60Mq3g$ 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%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F__%3B!!DZ3fjg!-&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cac1aa3dbcd494a8dca6808dba98fd05e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290207366317204%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JOyCNGkNL2KOzLnitwDV3WNNoInXxMsFsUSsoUexlnk%3D&reserved=0
> > _0YmMVJK8WjGS-
> AaivK9q556_EHdgDXhKwjKU5BsKAZnvFBuGhErtrqMwmkxJWXPVQ1Ilz
> > wXpXElcF_WRl-Ir_oow$
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
> about 36 years, 1987-2023.