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

[Richard Pyle]

OK, I now see that you are focused on " difficult groups (=those that are eligible for the neotype designation)", in which case disregard my questions in my previous post.

Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE
Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252
eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
BishopMuseum.org
Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through the exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Nick Grishin via
> Taxacom
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 6:47 PM
> To: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: Taxacom: replacing un-sequenceable types (was Re: Minimalist
> revision of Mesochorus)
> 
> > 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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%7C0361e852ea8e459e860208dbab4a257b%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638292107168219105%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aRShz5LSwAbHbqZYzm5kgOtRkxL6OjROE%2BUli0bXMHQ%3D&reserved=0
> 
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for about
> 36 years, 1987-2023.