Taxacom: Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst, 1829
Marco Uliana
marco.uliana.1 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 31 02:55:45 CDT 2023
Unless I missed some of your messages, I think the following perspective
was not yet explored:
Are names introduced by Sharkey are compliant with the following?
ICZN 15.1. Conditional proposal
A new name or nomenclatural act proposed conditionally and published after
1960 is not thereby made available. [...]
Saying "*few synonyms will be generated in our current effort which does
not attempt to match his names with Costa Rican specimens*" (other similar
arguments are found in the text)
isn't quite the same as saying
"*we don't really know if any of these taxa is new*, or which ones are.
But, based on statistics, we believe that at least some are new, and for
those that will be verified new, this is how they should be called*".
*note that 900 species of *Mesochorus *are described.
If not, what is the difference?
i.e., isn't this a conditional proposal, similar to "A" being accepted as a
"word" for adenine (and I agree with this)?
Hopefully we don't expect conditional proposals to be introduced like
"This is a conditional proposal of a new taxon", "We conditionally propose
this name", or similar.
Marco
ᐧ
Il giorno gio 31 ago 2023 alle ore 01:17 Stephen Thorpe <
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> ha scritto:
> I suggest that we take a step back and remind ourselves of the basics:
>
> Diagnosis versus description:
>
> A diagnosis is supposed to allow us to distinguish the new species from
> *known* relatives.
>
> A description is supposed to also allow us to distinguish the new species
> from any yet to be discovered new species, which may also equally fit the
> diagnosis.
>
> Example: Suppose genus Aus is currently monotypic. The species Aus bus has
> green legs. Then a new species is discovered, Auc cus, which has brown
> legs. The diagnosis for Aus cus need only mention that it has brown legs,
> but, further down the track, Aus dus might be discovered, also with brown
> legs, but with other differences. So, the description (but not the
> diagnosis) for Aus cus should try to mention all characters which might be
> relevant down the track.
>
> Comparison with previously described species:
>
> The proposal of a new species should exclude the possibility that it has
> already been described. This is not crucial, since we can just synonymise
> to fix it, but it is very bad taxonomic practice to disregard this
> guideline!
>
> One potential problem with DNA only descriptions is that it fails to rule
> out whether the species has already been described morphologically, unless
> you can check the DNA of all previously described relatives. In practice,
> this is very hard to achieve.
>
> One potential big advantage of DNA only descriptions is that it
> theoretically provides an easy full description for the species, to the
> point where you don't need diagnoses any more. You just compare the
> sequences and if the difference is above a certain threshold, then they are
> deemed to be different species. However, I'm not convinced that it really
> works out so neatly in practice and it does have some disadvantages. You've
> got the comparison problem to earlier morphologically described species
> that I mentioned above. You also need the facilities to do sequence
> analysis and it doesn't help for recognising species in the field in order
> to observe their natural history in a nondestructive way.
>
> Stephen
>
> On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 12:09:41 am NZST, Carlos Alberto Martínez
> Muñoz via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>
> I am glad that the logical fallacies in that paper are already being
> pointed out. Thank you, Marco. You will definitely find more.
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 2:02 PM Marco Uliana <marco.uliana.1 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all, I have been reading this group for a long time, but I think
> this
> > is my first message.
> > Greetings to everyone.
> >
> > The new Sharkey paper is available from here
> > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevistas.ucr.ac.cr%2Findex.php%2Frbt%2Fissue%2Fview%2F3352&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C7a6491733e01408b325808dba9f7b6a5%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290655189292709%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5J5AnTZWgPJRvHywDgC7Mv0jJpjmKjT3qxwQ1tTuKic%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > A decent proxy for their working method could perhaps be:
> > *As it was really hard for us to cope with the 245 species of neotropical
> > Nesochorus already described/treated by Dasch (1974), we decided it would
> > have been easier for us to go our own way and start again from zero*.
> > In the same way I suppose that, shall one find some problems with these
> > COI-based diagnosis (e.g.: ambiguous, mismatching morphology, out of
> reach,
> > obsolete against genomic based diagnosis, just too boring...), he can as
> > well ignore Sharkey et al. 2023, and restart taxonomy and nomenclature
> once
> > more.
> >
> > Also, I think that arguments like this are difficult to comment on:
> > *Many of the characters in Dasch’s key use jargon that only a few
> > entomologists know. *
> > *For example, few of the general population understand the terms
> > postpetiole and frons (Fig. 3). *
> > *The key is almost impossible for professional taxonomists, and it is in
> > an alien language for the vast majority of potential users.*
> >
> > I'm not sure if this is the right way to proceed...
> >
> > Marco Uliana
> > Museo di Storia Naturale di Venezia, Italy
> > ᐧ
> > ᐧ
> >
> > Il giorno mer 30 ago 2023 alle ore 11:38 Roderic Page via Taxacom <
> > taxacom at lists.ku.edu> ha scritto:
> >
> >> Hi Carlos,
> >>
> >> I’m reminded of Charles Godfrey’s wonderful essay "Taxonomy as
> >> Information Science” https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbiostor.org%2Freference%2F250587&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C7a6491733e01408b325808dba9f7b6a5%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290655189292709%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=s51JOVUs%2BP%2FA8VXZ6Da8xCRx567lExdyAIgxuOLVTe8%3D&reserved=0 where he
> >> writes (p. 174):
> >> A depressing amount of entomological taxonomy, especially in Europe,
> >> consists of long and lengthy discussions of this type of taxonomic
> >> book-keeping (to avoid this, some of the best taxonomists I know work
> only
> >> in the tropics where they can be biologists rather than archivists).
> >> I think the paper "Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst...”
> >> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevistas.ucr.ac.cr%2Findex.php%2Frbt%2Farticle%2Fview%2F56316&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C7a6491733e01408b325808dba9f7b6a5%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290655189292709%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=H9VairpluykPpOpHb9jWbPtay7N%2BCBLzXL05DW9i%2BPQ%3D&reserved=0 (the DOI
> >> doesn’t seem to be registered yet) makes a reasoned case for “ignoring"
> >> earlier work.
> >>
> >> By my reading the authors are simply saying that creating 2-3 synonyms
> >> for 10 existing names is a small price to pay for being able to document
> >> the other species in the large genus in a biologically rich region.
> >>
> >> It is a long time since I’ve done actual taxonomy, but I’m sure many
> >> researchers are faced with names they can’t place, descriptions that are
> >> nearly useless, specimens that are missing (or type series that comprise
> >> multiple taxa). At some point we make a judgement call about whether we
> >> invest time in resolving this, or put them to one side in the hope that
> >> perhaps we can resolve it later (do we want to be biologists or
> >> archivists?).
> >>
> >> The authors point out that sequencing the Dasch types (if feasible)
> would
> >> be one way to discover whether there are synonyms.
> >>
> >> Your statement that “all is set to completely overwrite the current
> >> morphological system and names” seems hyperbolic at best. We are in an
> >> interesting time where new technologies present new opportunities (and
> >> challenges), and we are figuring out how best to proceed (as we do every
> >> time new technologies come along and force us to rethink things).
> >>
> >> Personally I’m going to re-read Charles’ essay, and ponder how this
> >> debate (and others in our field) address his assessment (p. 172) that:
> >> What matters is not only how interesting the question is, the potential
> >> extra science that the research may leverage, but how capable the
> subject
> >> is of delivering useful output. I think taxonomy is suffering not
> because
> >> it is any less interesting or important than it was fifty years, but
> >> because it is largely failing to deliver.
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Rod
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >> Roderic Page
> >> Professor of Taxonomy
> >> School of Biodiversity, One Health, & Veterinary Medicine
> >> College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences
> >> Graham Kerr Building
> >> University of Glasgow
> >> Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
> >>
> >> Email: Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
> >> LinkedIn: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Frdmpage&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C7a6491733e01408b325808dba9f7b6a5%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290655189292709%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vEHaU52uB8BOlBA7NokOyq26vkQlZs1EXqWD2dYypTg%3D&reserved=0
> >> Twitter: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Frdmpage&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C7a6491733e01408b325808dba9f7b6a5%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290655189292709%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=UdQRsocCArYkDAlaw8I0rZTzGjCeVDCjxHfn0H62nbc%3D&reserved=0
> >> Telegram: rdmpage
> >> Blog: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fiphylo.blogspot.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C7a6491733e01408b325808dba9f7b6a5%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290655189292709%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ecN%2Fj%2F0J0d5c%2FaFvxe7JCd3pFhtglfI51sG9OHTFCcs%3D&reserved=0
> >> ORCID: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%2F0000-0002-7101-9767&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C7a6491733e01408b325808dba9f7b6a5%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290655189448944%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uHb%2BCsqx2quwrOiJKJfCGMYTsAQqxO3Vg8%2FNqG3Gri8%3D&reserved=0
> >> Citations:
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.co.uk%2Fcitations%3Fhl%3Den%26user%3D4Z5WABAAAAAJ&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C7a6491733e01408b325808dba9f7b6a5%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290655189448944%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nWLoFcAUyDaEGYewl6Q1ku4BHGucAxXc1Sk2A3vV9jc%3D&reserved=0
> >> ResearchGate https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FRoderic_Page&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C7a6491733e01408b325808dba9f7b6a5%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290655189448944%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JR8pfOPCnRcvfYQehGc0cfdLajB%2BaSs1JsFFRD36bdE%3D&reserved=0
> >> On 30 Aug 2023 at 09:11 +0100, Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz via
> Taxacom <
> >> taxacom at lists.ku.edu>, wrote:
> >> Dear Taxacomers,
> >> For your enjoyment, here is the latest episode of the Meierotto *et al.*
> >> (2019) saga, published six days ago, on August 24, 2023:
> >> Sharkey *et al*. (2023): Minimalist revision of *Mesochorus*
> Gravenhorst,
> >> 1829 (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Mesochorinae) from Área de
> Conservación
> >> Guanacaste, Costa Rica, with 158 new species and host records for 129
> >> species. *Revista de Biología Tropical*, 71 (S2): 1-174.
> >> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.15517%2Frev.biol.trop..v71iS2.2023&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C7a6491733e01408b325808dba9f7b6a5%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290655189448944%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AH%2F7Imfc1ybsLXtMywORJbUMce7b8%2B1WGLXCsOuEyfY%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >> You will enjoy reading through the logical fallacies in the
> introduction.
> >> But more importantly, this paper contains what I told you and warned you
> >> would happen, since the Meierotto *et al.* (2019) paper, if you failed
> to
> >> act swiftly and properly. Now it is here. Read:
> >> "Dasch (1974) treated a very small proportion of ACG *Mesochorus*
> species,
> >> therefore few synonyms will be generated in our current effort which
> does
> >> not attempt to match his names with Costa Rican specimens."
> >> There you have a primarily morphological system finally openly hijacked
> by
> >> a parallel taxonomic system which wants to use the naming rules of the
> >> current system for convenience.
> >> "In other words, it is likely that we are generating two or three
> synonyms
> >> (0.23 x 10) of these Dasch species."
> >> So, a complete disregard for priority and open acceptance of synonym
> >> creation, as I warned four years ago. When things like this can go
> through
> >> and get published, even when they threaten universality and stability,
> >> then
> >> you realize that we don't need a ZooCode anymore. Given that the
> authors,
> >> reviewers, and editor accepted 23% synonym creation as good, then all is
> >> set to completely overwrite the current morphological system and names,
> as
> >> the 2 million species described versus 10 million species estimate is
> just
> >> 20%. If we estimate a total of 80 or 100 million species, then creating
> 2
> >> million synonyms for the existing names goes down to a "negligible" 2%
> >> synonymy threshold. Completely acceptable, isn't it?
> >>
> >> To the commissioners who have tolerated this, because of their conflict
> of
> >> values (not of interest) based on the incorrect assumption that species
> >> need scientific names to be assessed and protected: anyone that has read
> >> through the IUCN Red List methodology knows that this is not true, and
> >> there are countries with legislation in place to protect species even if
> >> they don't have scientific names. You better update yourselves.
> >>
> >> By the way, at least one of the species has two original spellings,
> >> *Mesochorus
> >> dotres* (which should be declared an incorrect original spelling) and
> >> *Mesochorus
> >> dostres* (the supposedly correct spelling).
> >>
> >> Now I will just sit here and contemplate the devastation.
> >>
> >> Am I forgetting to emphasise something? Ah, yes: "I told you".
> >>
> >> Yours in horror,
> >> Carlos Martínez
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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%7C7a6491733e01408b325808dba9f7b6a5%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290655189448944%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NaWDx2LpMx%2BPNti57qWiSEf6TPmA34sPjUuGtDpQjvo%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%7C7a6491733e01408b325808dba9f7b6a5%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290655189448944%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NaWDx2LpMx%2BPNti57qWiSEf6TPmA34sPjUuGtDpQjvo%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%7C7a6491733e01408b325808dba9f7b6a5%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290655189448944%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NaWDx2LpMx%2BPNti57qWiSEf6TPmA34sPjUuGtDpQjvo%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
> about 36 years, 1987-2023.
>
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list