Taxacom: replacing un-sequenceable types (was Re: Minimalist revision of Mesochorus)

Thu Aug 31 11:28:26 CDT 2023

I sort of read the proposal with some morbid fascination. Effectively a
type isn't a type isn't a type anymore. A type becomes whatever anyone says
it should be, and if it can occur once, it can occur twice or more. What
would happen in the future if one decides that the kind of molecular
sequencing was actually inadequate (for example, comparing barcode
extraction vs more extensive sampling) and it was decided that all
molecular types are now no longer types? In fact anyone could just claim,
right now, that any non-molecular type specimens are no longer types since
they hold no molecular meaning until they are 'verified' by sequencing in
the future (I'm not so familiar with molecular extraction, but I get the
impression that the older the specimen the more problematic extracting the
whole strand). And by default, there are no fossils, just fossils of
uncertain provenance. Or, in the future someone might decide that some kind
of new molecular level resolution 3d MRI imaging was the way to go, and as
most types have deteriorated, need new specimens that become the types. The
proposal sounds good in theory, like Mao's Great Leap Forward [and we saw
the consequences of that], but in reality something else. Interestingly,
the type serves as an empirical reference point. If a new molecular based
type is proposed because the original type could not be sequenced, there is
no direct comparison (at a molecular level) and so the new type is really
empirically meaningless with respect to the original.

Brave New World.

John Grehan

declare that *every
single type specimen in your collection is henceforth no longer a type
specimen*.

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 11:54 AM Douglas Yanega via Taxacom <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

> 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%7C17dde311dd7e45094f6908dbaa3f647a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290961463935162%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7uo8mHFCtf79ia14ebrzvD5L%2BEyeXj7kfhX3qNAWvFU%3D&reserved=0
>    "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>          is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
> _______________________________________________
> 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%7C17dde311dd7e45094f6908dbaa3f647a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290961463935162%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aZLRKw7i0QeWzr2RcGRtD91874w67rHFOCxMf5J%2BAGA%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
> about 36 years, 1987-2023.
>

-- 
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C17dde311dd7e45094f6908dbaa3f647a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290961463935162%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hS2pHKvl3D6gcUc6lODbDRIj%2Bj64CiADLO%2Fc9vbwfUU%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.