Taxacom: Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst, 1829

[Marco Uliana]

About diagnosis and differentiation, one can argue that there was
deliberately no attempt of diagnosis and differentiation against some
hundreds of previously known taxa.
But, I would also consider the case from a perhaps more "philosophical"
perspective.
What kind of science, what kind of common knowledge are we going to build
if each of us chooses - at his best convenience - to speak his own language
and set his own rules, disregarding what others have done/said/named?
In this case, Sharkey et al. are also forcing others to use their own
"language", since they published available names that can't be ignored by
future code-compliant taxonomists.
Bad science, when it is the case, can be ignored and forgotten, but this is
not true for badly introduced names.

About robustness of DNA-based taxonomy/COI-based diagnosis, I would also
like to suggest the following paper, just published, showing how far that
approach can be from a satisfactory taxonomy.

*Contrasting results of multiple species delimitation approaches cause
uncertainty in synecological studies: A case study on Sri Lankan chafers*
*Insect Conservation and Diversity*
*DOI: 10.1111/icad.12684*

best, Marco

ᐧ

Il giorno mer 30 ago 2023 alle ore 21:48 Francisco Welter-Schultes via
Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> ha scritto:

> 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%7Cb17f6dc7a5d148f3887d08dba9995294%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290248784881630%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JH%2BOejgE4cYCs8AmrMTts%2FTGOK0EqwmE7MydPd9UsAs%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%7Cb17f6dc7a5d148f3887d08dba9995294%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290248785037845%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AiV85MLBtOTNkTQ%2FMG4J2O8iMjMPmU3bf1ZSoxeLnwk%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%7Cb17f6dc7a5d148f3887d08dba9995294%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290248785037845%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qns3WBmmhuXQf2G%2Fe9d%2F0XGZNmB86tvb1kveMwdQ0gY%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%7Cb17f6dc7a5d148f3887d08dba9995294%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290248785037845%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=U%2BB%2FWADLMJGLTtVGt5esw3BmOZs%2FK%2B8UvUvrqvhOreE%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%7Cb17f6dc7a5d148f3887d08dba9995294%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290248785037845%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=McF4j%2BEY4FcrmnN4rEIwnSJogRi%2FOF5HqUNiU8cw6Pk%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%7Cb17f6dc7a5d148f3887d08dba9995294%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290248785037845%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=McF4j%2BEY4FcrmnN4rEIwnSJogRi%2FOF5HqUNiU8cw6Pk%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
> about 36 years, 1987-2023.
>