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

Tue Sep 5 00:59:05 CDT 2023

Marko, you wrote that
'all taxonomically relevant data is encoded in DNA...  Be it ecological,
morphological or whatever.'

But the biogeography of the group is not encoded in its DNA, even though it
is heritable information and often valuable in taxonomy. E.g. two entities
that were previously confused may turn out to be perfectly allopatric.

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 6:53 PM Marko Mutanen via Taxacom <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

> Nick,
>
> Nice to meet you! I am a person who finds that taxonomy being based
> entirely on DNA would be the best way to do it. As you wrote, basing it on
> full genomes would be the best option. However, in real life, at least for
> the time being, this approach is not a very feasible one. This being said,
> I deeply appreciate your works on butterfly genomes and hope being able to
> do something similar - to the same incredible scale!
>
> I don't think I am the only one sharing this opinion. The recent proposals
> of DNA taxonomy based on standard nuclear markers might suggest that we are
> more. With this, I don't mean that the integrative approaches would be
> wrong. I am doing it a lot myself. But I doubt it is the best way,
> especially in the future as genomics tools become increasingly available to
> taxonomists.
>
> Why do I think that that only-DNA would be the best approach? In short,
> because species delimitation is largely bound to be arbitrary. For example,
> probably most species' distribution is patchy, with isolated populations
> being differentiated to the various degrees. With my colleagues, I have
> written about this allopatry problem in species delimitation in several
> articles. Because speciation is a gradual process, delimitation of
> diverging populations is inherently arbitrary. As so, the best would be to
> base it all on quantifiable data, i.e. DNA. That would serve the stability
> the best as enabling standardization. Also, finally all taxonomically
> relevant data is encoded in DNA, as you also stated. Be it ecological,
> morphological or whatever. Even when we do not know yet where this
> information is hidden in the genome, it is still there.
>
> I am also convinced, given the unprecedented progress of genomics
> technologies, that not far in the future recovering entire genomes of
> organisms is both straightforward and cheap. Once we can retrieve huge
> amounts of information (and all that matters) in such an easy way, why
> shouldn't we take a full benefit of it?
>
> With this, I of course do not mean that we should stop working on
> morphology. I love morphology and spend a lot of my time on mounting
> insects. I only mean that delimitation of species would be best done if
> based on DNA alone.
>
> Best,
>
> Marko Mutanen
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Nick Grishin
> via Taxacom
> Sent: perjantai 1. syyskuuta 2023 7.47
> 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%7C573f5be63718440d9c1708dbadd53e1d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638294903651513583%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hd1nrJlpwYcwVAI6sNsGmEAUn8xoAoYczV78XA9b378%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%7C573f5be63718440d9c1708dbadd53e1d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638294903651513583%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hd1nrJlpwYcwVAI6sNsGmEAUn8xoAoYczV78XA9b378%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
> about 36 years, 1987-2023.
>

-- 
Dunedin, New Zealand.

My books:

*Biogeography and evolution in New Zealand. *Taylor and Francis/CRC, Boca
Raton FL. 2017.
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.routledge.com%2FBiogeography-and-Evolution-in-New-Zealand%2FHeads%2Fp%2Fbook%2F9781498751872&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C573f5be63718440d9c1708dbadd53e1d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638294903651513583%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lrgwQ1MTTHkPk%2Bjm063zL3Mzs9smRxO9fKYi0Jpt3lc%3D&reserved=0

*Biogeography of Australasia:  A molecular analysis*. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge. 2014. https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cambridge.org%2F9781107041028&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C573f5be63718440d9c1708dbadd53e1d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638294903651513583%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Dd15vbAO4TmkhOM%2FMrmXucMA410CrECXTWojWwlQQk0%3D&reserved=0

*Molecular panbiogeography of the tropics. *University of California Press,
Berkeley. 2012. https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ucpress.edu%2Fbook.php%3Fisbn%3D9780520271968&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C573f5be63718440d9c1708dbadd53e1d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638294903651513583%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Bs3LiwJyySH3qIkbDmd%2B%2F0%2B6YxfixnZ%2BexOnMuQoBHM%3D&reserved=0

*Panbiogeography: Tracking the history of life*. Oxford University Press,
New York. 1999. (With R. Craw and J. Grehan).
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.co.nz%2Fbooks%3Fid%3DBm0_QQ3Z6GUC&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C573f5be63718440d9c1708dbadd53e1d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638294903651513583%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SeWb2NyHgYgu1jy38Qr9ovWdcKy40HHXX%2FOwnOO4rg8%3D&reserved=0
<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.co.nz%2Fbooks%3Fid%3DBm0_QQ3Z6GUC%26dq%3Dpanbiogeography%26source%3Dgbs_navlinks_s&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C573f5be63718440d9c1708dbadd53e1d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638294903651513583%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IjeE6wqoTrSgd4fgpir58SY3hoB3YYtr1l3m5ZPxuZk%3D&reserved=0>