Taxacom: [iczn-list] Minimalist revision of Mesochorus

[Nick Grishin]

> distinct genitalia. But genitalic differences have been taken into 
> account for a very long time, so there is unlikely to be 200 years worth 
> of published data on a species that includes morphologically different 
> forms of the genitalia.

For insects --- hundreds, if not thousands, of cases. E.g.,

Hermeuptychia intricata

https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fzookeys.pensoft.net%2Farticles.php%3Fid%3D3341%26journal_name%3Dzookeys&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C05dadd9add324c5b725708dba9e6db9b%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290581229888509%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Etk2x2NvDIX%2FbHmStctBY7YaJQeY7TnXWHDhEDQvwqU%3D&reserved=0

220 years of literature, clearly identifiable by genitalia (both males and 
females), not cryptic (in your definition) at all, not even in the same 
species group. True, spotted by "barcoding." Indeed, I had no idea about 
the existence of this species before we started sequencing. Why were 
morphologists missing it for 220 years? I suspect because not many 
actually looked at it.

My point is that there are thousands of cases with rich literature that 
refers to two or more similar in some sense but morphologically 
identifiable species that were clubbed into one before, but discovered 
only recently. It has nothing to do with DNA, but with our perception of 
nature. DNA is wonderful and most helpful, and its exploration should only 
be encouraged by all means. n