Taxacom: On describing new taxa without using phylogenetics: some suggestions

Tue Oct 7 00:53:16 CDT 2025

Dear Guoyi,

your point is well founded. The confusion may be in the term "phylogenetics". This term relates to the establishment of genealogies, regardless of the methods used. What you refer to is the use of quantitative methods, even when only morphological data are available. I believe the term is then "cladistics", which came long after the use of "phylogenetics". There are also other quantitative methods, including an array of multivariate analyses and phenotype-based phylogenetic binning (which was precisely designed for fossils but can be used for any kind of phenotype data).

Regards
Robert

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> Im Auftrag von Kuoi Zhang via Taxacom
Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Oktober 2025 03:52
An: Taxacom (taxacom at lists.ku.edu) <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
Betreff: Taxacom: On describing new taxa without using phylogenetics: some suggestions

Zhang G, Feng Q. 2025. Why we should not describe new taxa without using phylogenetics. Comment on Chen et al. (2025). Journal of Natural History 59(37-40): 2355-2359.
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1080%2F00222933.2025.2564347&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C365054bb587f41cc43a108de0565d22e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638954132189204859%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eqCKYVKM%2FDjZcM7FFXGyvbup23SCsXXft7hdzeGX5Bw%3D&reserved=0

pdf available at https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F396239492_Why_we_should_not_describe_new_taxa_without_using_phylogenetics_Comment_on_Chen_et_al_2025&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C365054bb587f41cc43a108de0565d22e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638954132189222359%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EW12QhCgsWYeWX3mLpmsKEr0FK1UMZyQbhvadaLgGwQ%3D&reserved=0<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F396239492_Why_we_should_not_describe_new_taxa_without_using_phylogenetics_Comment_on_Chen_et_al_2025%3F_sg%255B0%255D%3DhqDEV92UeyWCOKjJ17ed1jbtmejHJ9MvHWGQaWxxhz91RNCiYocNZhGRj2BRWUdscZ9UF6XUnkfkZoKRIVT8RXi0FUkNPb4Rchgejiww.9eeTE4s8-qcLQo1Mb6y-bvvUmMI_J0sUIayNKpVofl3fGnDJw9mz4G9HP665eLzB2opS-IMV26GiwEDPg5TCgA%26_tp%3DeyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InByb2ZpbGUiLCJwYWdlIjoicHJvZmlsZSIsInBvc2l0aW9uIjoicGFnZUNvbnRlbnQifX0&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C365054bb587f41cc43a108de0565d22e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638954132189235403%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=UI9zVfanQA4U%2B%2BJUGhnadsDXp8kvkKlXsG2ioRhqj18%3D&reserved=0>

Under the pressure of an overwhelming number of problematic new taxa, we call for taxonomists to incorporate phylogenetic methods and reasoning into their taxonomic work. I understand that many may disagree, but please allow me to explain.

This paper briefly summarizes why taxonomy is a science, how taxonomy can be a science, how the ideas and methods of Kant, Darwin, Hennig, and Popper have influenced modern taxonomy, and why contemporary taxonomic research should not be separated from phylogenetics, both from the perspectives of history and the philosophy of science.

To reach readers who may be new to phylogenetics, we must emphasize that phylogenetics is not limited to molecular data. Although I belong to Generation Z, I am aware that phylogenetics was first widely applied to morphological characters long before molecular sequencing became common. While morphology-based phylogenetics may suffer from homoplasy, something is still better than nothing. Simply describing morphological patterns without an explicit phylogenetic framework is less informative and less scientific than conducting morphology-based phylogenetic analyses.

I am aware of previous arguments presented in the paper "Should we describe genera without molecular phylogenies?", whose author strongly opposed our views and directly criticized our commentary during the review process. That paper lacked a clear understanding of phylogenetics based on morphological data, as also revealed during the review process of our own manuscript. The author wrote, "not to mention fossil taxa, which also need to be placed in the system obviously without molecular support." I believe most paleontologists would disagree with this statement, as fossil taxa can indeed be placed within a phylogenetic framework using morphological characters.

In response to claims such as "we should invest more trust in the taxonomic evaluations of the decreasing number of taxonomists and allow more freedom for morphology-based grouping," I would say: "Taxonomy should not become theology, where people are expected to believe without evidence." Furthermore, I personally disagree with the statement "taxonomy is a science, and all new taxa that are proposed are hypotheses that can be refuted and falsified." A taxon described solely by a fixed morphological pattern, as the author often does, cannot truly be falsified, since any additional variation can easily be reinterpreted as representing a new taxon. Such direct assertions are not falsifiable, much like religious doctrines. When synonyms or new taxonomic acts are later proposed, it merely reflects a redefinition of original taxa using new assertions or occasionally falsifiable methods.

Ultimately, this commentary only represents our perspective on taxonomic practice. We are also happy to receive any constructive feedback.

Best regards
Guoyi

Guoyi Zhang (she/her), MRes, PhD candidate Personal Web<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmalacology.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C365054bb587f41cc43a108de0565d22e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638954132189248066%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QPBcFYY8aV%2B7STwtUvGItrZzhT68agkJ2CK0Wahp2IU%3D&reserved=0> | OCRID<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%2F0000-0002-3426-9273&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C365054bb587f41cc43a108de0565d22e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638954132189261211%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zjpxja2xy%2FUmOjBg852EfhzUrNYWC6Qty1F3zd6elSA%3D&reserved=0>
School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences University of New South Wales Australian Museum Research Institute Australian Museum

_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for 38 years, 1987-2025.

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