Taxacom: [iczn-list] Minimalist revision of Mesochorus

[Nick Grishin]

Stephen,

Replace "cryptic specis" in your message with "species morphologically 
distinct in genitalia." Nothing changes for me. What about you?

What do we study? Nature or literature? I prefer to think that I study 
nature with the help of literature, not the other way around, n


On Thu, 31 Aug 2023, Stephen Thorpe wrote:

> Nick, There is one major drawback of splitting a species into cryptic 
> species that cannot be fixed by designation of a neotype. Suppose that 
> Aus bus is described 200 years ago and frequently mentioned in the 
> literature, not only the taxonomic literature, but also widely in 
> ecological, applied and biogeographical literature. If it is then split 
> into cryptic species, that renders all of that literature from the last 
> 200 years pretty much useless, because you don't know which of the 
> cryptic species any of the information applies to. Designating a neotype 
> doesn't help. Worse is that people reading all that historical 
> literature need to know the details of the recent split and it will be 
> very difficult to stop historical published data on Aus bus from 
> continuing to be linked to the species now known as Aus bus. Stephen
>    On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 04:53:28 pm NZST, Nick Grishin <grishin at chop.swmed.edu> wrote:
>
> The point of pioneering works is to stur up the minds so that some
> progress can be made. As such, I consider Sharkey et al. papers
> pioneering. They made the point.
>
> The nomenclature part of the aspect is clear: yes, A is a word, or that's
> how it will be eventually. Arguing about words is fun but may not solve
> real problems.
>
> To me, the real questions are:
>
> #1. how would you minimally modify the Sharkey approach to call it
> acceptable?
>
> #2. what would be the estimated time invested in carrying out #1?
>
> #3. what would be the estimated cost of it?
>
>
>> From where I stand, the real question about the works by Sharkey et al.,
> is whether already extracted DNA of the holotypes or their body parts are
> available for additional sequencing. If they are, then Sharkey's works are
> useful. If not, then value of these works sinks by quite a bit, and they
> might create an obstacle for further studies of the group rather than
> promote them. The COI barcode is a tiny randomly selected segment of a
> sequence from mitochondria (which are, after all, bacteria living in
> insect cells) and it doesn't represent the actual insect in {10%-30% ?
> insert your number here} cases.
>
> If these taxonomic groups are worth some serious study, then whole genome
> shotgun of all Sharkey holotypes is the first step (can be done in 1 week
> in my lab). Then, whole genome shotgun of all other extant primary types
> associated with the group and neotype designations (with genomic
> sequencing) for those that could not be found is next (another week).
> These two steps will establish synonymies and estimate reliability of
> barcodes for species delination in these insects within a couple of months
> (give some weeks for laziness, mishaps, additional specimen sequencing,
> and data analysis), opening the floodgates for future research. Sounds
> easy and doable. All the technology is here. The problem? The price-tag!
> Not $10, unfortunately.
>
>
>> in the event that a DNA sample cannot be extracted from a name-bearing
>> type specimen (for whatever reason), should the Code provide a mechanism
>> for ...
>
> By all means -- YES! (did I say yes? YES!!!)
>
> Actually, the mechanism is already there, it is Art.75.5. But if you guys
> can brainstorm it a bit more and make it better, it would be a wonderful
> service to the comminuty.
>
> Even more generally, there are too many Articles that rely on the "plenary
> power." Thinking about how to give more power to the people by sensible
> rules without any "plenaries" should be better.
>
> Specifically, in the future world, any primary type without whole genome
> shotgun is "unidentifiable" (except fossils, species that do not qualify
> for neotype designations when their types are lost, etc.).
>
> Collections with primary type holdings across the world have been
> incredibly generous and supportive, beyond expectations, of genomic
> sequencing projects in my lab. That's how we were able to sequence >5000
> primary types from 1770-ies on. Not just the barcodes, but all bits of
> genomic DNA extracted from these name-bearing specimens. This is not to
> brag, but to say that such work is on-going, and I think is highly
> successful and promising. It is not because morphology is "bad", it is
> because morphology is not always sufficient, and because we learn so much
> more with genomic DNA and morphology together (e.g. how one encodes the
> other).
>
> But indeed, if "for whatever reason" type sequencing is not possible,
> provided that all the necessary steps were taken to obtain whole genome
> shotgun, should be grounds for the neotype designation without the
> "plenaries." Similar to the neotype designations in case of lost
> specimens. No DNA from the type = this specimen is "lost" as the type
> specimen. Such type specimens are (or will be) mostly useless as name
> bearers for taxa that qualify for neotype designations under the current
> Code.
>
> More specifically, as an example, a letter from some collection authority
> stating that DNA sequencing of the type specimen is not possible could be
> published in a paper and that permanently deprives this specimen from its
> name-bearing status (i.e. it is considered "lost" for nomenclature and
> remains a historical specimen without name-bearning value).
>
> I'm not smart enough to figure out the wording, provisions, and groups of
> organisms these new genomic-friendly rules could apply to, but for most
> dry-preserved insects such rules will do wonders for overcoming the
> "impediment."
>
> Yes, too long, but thanks for the great discussion, n
>
> _______________________________________________
> iczn-list mailing list
> iczn-list at afriherp.org
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flist.afriherp.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ficzn-list&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C06d864c7974f45fcade708dba9e20e3b%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290560587689486%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qRByxxpsiDtvH2n0fxC%2BQqrFM8emxQMI9RMXRSPQiiI%3D&reserved=0
>