Taxacom: [iczn-list] Minimalist revision of Mesochorus

[Stephen Thorpe]

 Yes, there must be a few cases like that, but the fewer cases the better.
My point is that it creates a situation in which confusion is very easy: A significant amount of historical literature about Aus bus is now virtually meaningless and it will be hard to stop it from being associated with the "new" Aus bus (defined by neotype designation).
One question: In the abstract of your paper, you say "It secures the universally accepted traditional usage of this name."I don't understand! If the species name was previously used for mixed species, how does neotype designation "secure the universally accepted traditional usage of this name"?
Stephen
    On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 05:55:26 pm NZST, Nick Grishin <grishin at chop.swmed.edu> wrote:  
 
 > 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%7Cfa683ee95ff842c61d7808dba9e97173%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290592335730694%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nPKTv7IYQhSCFrIZUg%2FbMoP1bdX7RPgRzdpj8ATPysM%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
_______________________________________________
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%7Cfa683ee95ff842c61d7808dba9e97173%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290592335730694%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yFVUtrgFIhck4jGtGNGwuiJZSO4Je%2F6gFboRIMGWSPI%3D&reserved=0