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

Fri Oct 10 00:17:53 CDT 2025

Thank you!

As a practicing taxonomist, for describing a new species I am interested
more in differences, which are crucial in establishing sp.n., rather than
similarities. I need to provide firstly evidence that it is a separate
taxon, and only the next stage would be to find out its origin. I typically
have no issues placing it in a genus. You do not need phylogeny to prove
that a new species of sparrow is a sparrow. Although, of course, there are
exceptions of difficult taxa with unclear position. A diagnosis is more
important than affinities. In other words, I describe a new species even
without clear understanding of its position, but I would not be able to do
so, if I do not see that a species is significantly different from its
congeners. To be more theoretical, establishment of new species is about a
species concept rather than its relations.

On the other hand, phylogenetic component definitely makes a study more
comprehensive. And I published also works with stronger phylogenetic
component. But should it dictated? Does not look so.

Sincerely,

Mikhail Daneliya

On Tue, 7 Oct 2025, 04:52 Kuoi Zhang via Taxacom, <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
wrote:

> 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%7C10a080b24ee24d76016d08de07bc64b8%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638956702893200857%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oBJca%2FaJCGRGFBJ7WidIBqwd4thUCFvrGfHMm%2FY1wsE%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%7C10a080b24ee24d76016d08de07bc64b8%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638956702893217833%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WdqCP76o21VRF8b8AhMX3gB0tMEJOXR834f5jpkrJmk%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%7C10a080b24ee24d76016d08de07bc64b8%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638956702893231916%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=E%2Fga%2FeBJOvbtA9dy0koouAz5%2BHf1%2Fxs66hgAHZAIXxc%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%7C10a080b24ee24d76016d08de07bc64b8%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638956702893246516%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8Zkym%2FzU4EJyTBIc3BlYJWgYLLPIS47eoY9o8V95Cs8%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%7C10a080b24ee24d76016d08de07bc64b8%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638956702893261944%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Ck06lSv7ouIzeGZgjQgFVTcBS2sVBuFYlshcsyZAcmY%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
>
>
>