Taxacom: Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst, 1829

Wed Aug 30 14:47:54 CDT 2023

A pure DNA sequence, when presented in the form of "AGTC...etc.", is a 
statement in words, I agree with Rich that "AGTC" counts as a sequence 
of words. Adenine is a word and can be expressed in various ways in a 
written form. "A" is a written form of this word. Chinese characters are 
also allowed. Also here we have only one character for a word.

Art. 13.1.1 however is more than only this detail. The expression
"purported to differentiate the taxon" may be ambiguous, but is the 
condition "allowing to differentiate the taxon" (French Code) satisfied? 
Does "AGTC" allow to differentiate?

Best wishes
Francisco

Am 30.08.2023 um 21:32 schrieb Richard Pyle via Taxacom:
> 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%7Cdb59b4cdcfde43a2ef9f08dba992006f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290216786559094%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Bfx5QIi%2BGtvzuovR5J53z2fXtWOIOR6s%2FgsEWyxVBr8%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%7Cdb59b4cdcfde43a2ef9f08dba992006f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290216786559094%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6AOGTKAFYSMRvA%2FPE%2Fsz1sOMxrNUr5Y66%2B0EVEg1uM0%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%7Cdb59b4cdcfde43a2ef9f08dba992006f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290216786559094%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Bfx5QIi%2BGtvzuovR5J53z2fXtWOIOR6s%2FgsEWyxVBr8%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%7Cdb59b4cdcfde43a2ef9f08dba992006f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290216786559094%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=icU6xK6Lqlf0KePw9JuaEP5MZXT1A9BQPwYkPrPcuiw%3D&reserved=0
>>> _0YmMVJK8WjGS-
>> AaivK9q556_EHdgDXhKwjKU5BsKAZnvFBuGhErtrqMwmkxJWXPVQ1Ilz
>>> wXpXElcF_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://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%7Cdb59b4cdcfde43a2ef9f08dba992006f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290216786559094%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BFEZSa6ssIm4f6M8aTgCH7%2BgbQ%2FtB1KFC3KAWixrk%2FY%3D&reserved=0
> 
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for about 36 years, 1987-2023.
> 