[Taxacom] Integrative taxonomy

[Stephen Thorpe]

personally, I don't want mole. systs. creating cheap and nasty trinomials all 
over the place, which enter into zoological nomenclature and bioinformatics! The 
candidate species idea puts them outside of zoo. nom., but still in 
bioinformatic concern, and since we are talking either candidate SPECIES or Code 
valid subspecies, I suspect the mole systs would go strongly for the former, and 
then these could become THE names, so they simply don't need the old 
nomenclature and old taxonomists any more!

Perhaps a better option is for the mole systs to use some sort of alphanumeric 
codes for their "molecutypes" and not even call these things potential or actual 
species

Stephen

 

________________________________
From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
To: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
Cc: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; TAXACOM 
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Sun, 1 August, 2010 8:19:10 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Integrative taxonomy

Read my earlier post to Stephen.  The subspecies thing was only in the
context of cases where a known species is potentially split into many. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Mesibov [mailto:mesibov at southcom.com.au] 
> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 8:00 PM
> To: Richard Pyle
> Cc: Stephen Thorpe; TAXACOM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Integrative taxonomy
> 
> Richard Pyle wrote:
> 
> 'To even consider recognition as a "candidate species", we 
> have to assume there is some minimal level of "consistent 
> morphological [or genotypical] differences". When these 
> differences are "too small to indicate reproductive 
> isolation" with sufficient confidence to justify a 
> full-species name, then a candidate species may be warranted. 
> In my mind, this is exactly the sort of situation when we 
> ought to consider subspecies designators.'
> 
> Subspecies of what? Only validly named and described species? 
> The authors of the FIZ article suggest candidate names for 
> possible novelties. Because these cannot be included as 
> subspecies anywhere, would you prefer leaving them in limbo, 
> or do you see (as the authors do) the need for publication 
> with a coding system?
> --
> Dr Robert Mesibov
> Honorary Research Associate
> Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and School of Zoology, 
> University of Tasmania Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, 
> Tasmania, Australia 7316
> 03 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> Webpage: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/?articleID=570
>