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

[Nick Grishin]

> Doug, I agree with your reasoning here, except for one major problem! If 
> you promote DNA-only based taxonomy,

I have not met a person who promotes "DNA-only taxonomy." Does such 
concept even exist? If there are such people here, please speak up.

Personally, I promote Code-compliant integrative taxonomy that is guided 
by genomic DNA sequencing (not barcoding) of primary type specimens. Why 
so? Because morphology has been studied for centuries, and the genomic 
approach most efficiently reveals what has been missed before. Genomic 
sequencing first (with morphology-guided specimen selection), morphology 
second, to explain and rationalize sequencing results.

Genomic sequence = the blueprint of the entire organism, including its 
adult morphology, and also eggs, larvae, food, behavior, habitat and 
mating preferences. Just more information than in a pinned adult.


> then those old, unsequenceable types lose any utility that they may once 
> have had anyway, regardless of whether or not they formally lose type 
> status! Nobody will have any reason to examine them. They will 
> effectively become types of nomina dubia.

A note: "old" and "unsequenceable" are uncorrelated properties. Nearly all 
"old" types sequence great. And there was an insect specimen collected in 
2020 that we couldn't sequence. Maybe it got COVID and the virus destroyed 
all of its DNA?

But if "unsequenceable" types for difficult groups (=those that are 
eligible for the neotype designation) are kept as types, these names 
indeed are nomina dubia. They would either be ignored, or the groups with 
them will not be addressed by revisions, and nobody will work on them for 
years until someone solves the problem somehow.

I think it may be an opportunity for the ICZN to weigh in here and help 
the community, n