Taxacom: replacing un-sequenceable types (was Re: Minimalist revision of Mesochorus)
Douglas Yanega
dyanega at gmail.com
Thu Aug 31 10:53:23 CDT 2023
On 8/30/23 9:28 PM, Nick Grishin via Taxacom wrote:
> 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).
This is an unrealistic estimate. The "all other extant primary types"
are probably scattered in over a dozen different museums in different
countries, and you would be lucky if you would be able to get this step
done within a year, and all that travel will be fairly expensive. Also,
see my comment below.
>
> 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 sure you realized when you proposed this just what a proverbial
bombshell this would be.
Think carefully about this:
Imagine you are the curator of a major collection, and one of the *most
valuable* parts of your collection is the set of a few hundred type
specimens from the private collection of a famous taxonomist from the
early 1800s, maybe SEVERAL famous taxonomists. These types are fragile,
many in poor condition, and irreplaceable. People come from all over the
world to examine these types, and you have also invested a large amount
of money in taking images of them, and putting these images online. They
are kept in special cabinets in a separate room from the main collection.
Someone then writes to you asking whether all of those types are
available for molecular sequencing, and you write a response saying
"None of these specimens is available for such purposes".
A few months later, the person who contacted you publishes a paper in
which they quote your response, and they summarily declare that *every
single type specimen in your collection is henceforth no longer a type
specimen*.
That part of your collection has just gone from being incredibly
valuable and irreplaceable, to effectively worthless. The money you
spent on taking images of your specimens has been for nothing. The
special cabinets and room now contain nothing of any value to anyone,
and will never be visited again.
Implementing such a provision in the Code might not bother many
taxonomists, but I doubt that a single museum curator in the world would
consider this acceptable. You might argue that the purpose of type
specimens is not to benefit the collections in which they reside, and
that's true enough - that's admittedly not the PURPOSE of types. But, in
reality, *they do have that effect*. Types confer prestige. This effect
influences not only the number of visitors a museum gets, but the amount
of external support - a very tangible benefit can accrue by virtue of
being a type repository. You won't generally get an NSF grant to take
photos of random specimens in your collection, but you CAN get grants to
take photos of types.
Speaking now as a museum curator:
You're talking about a policy that "sounds good on paper", but would do
a LOT of collateral damage to most of the world's most prestigious
collections. It would be analogous to holding a flame thrower in front
of a cabinet of specimens and saying "Either you let me sequence these,
or I'll incinerate them". No curator would enjoy being compelled to make
such a choice, and you could expect some *serious* resistance.
Peace,
--
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffaculty.ucr.edu%2F~heraty%2Fyanega.html&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C24bafd6002f34538ce7308dbaa3a6a41%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290940136563863%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hnDa073vggsoW5ci8rpKSKw0O6O9l6hpaTSBOHAJlVs%3D&reserved=0
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list