[Taxacom] Integrative taxonomy

[Stephen Thorpe]

a surprisingly good point from Geoff! :)
working out if a species already has a name is a complex business involving old 
type specimens and old literature - just the sort of stuff that the mole systs 
hate!
you know they want to throw out all the Linnean history and start over - and 
that we must avoid at all costs ...

Stephen




________________________________
From: Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Sun, 1 August, 2010 8:28:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Integrative taxonomy

I am struggling to see the relevance of the Hirudo medicinalis candidate
name example used in the paper, viz "Hirudo medicinalis [Ca3 Siddall et
al. 2007]".  As one would expect there are oodles of existing old names
available for European Hirudo spp, and the sequence pointed to - EF405599
- happens to be of H. orientalis, redescribed in 2005 before the Siddall
paper in 2007, and described (invalidly) as a variety name before that way
back in 1962, and indeed mentioned in the Siddall paper. All 3 species in
Siddall are already described.

I think the authors should have pointed out this was an artificial example
and that the "candidate" species already has a name. In this case one
could say the old taxonomists were way faster than the molecularists!

This idea seems to be legitimizing molecular workers to avoid (even more
than they do already) doing the hard yards of investigating what is
already known in the parallel science universe of morphological taxonomy.

Geoff


>>> On 1/08/2010 at 7:28 p.m., Bob Mesibov  wrote:

> Padial et al. wrote (FIZ article):
>
> "In the practice of current (increasingly molecular) systematics,
> phylogeography and DNA barcoding studies of eukaryotes are revealing units
> that might represent potential new species at a faster pace than results
> can be followed up by taxonomists. This situation suggests a need for
> guidelines to order and classify this undescribed diversity."
>
> Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>
> "I don't see a problem here that needs fixing! If anyone, gel-jockey or
> traditional taxonomist thinks they have a novelty - then describe it as a
> new species (in full compliance with the ICZN/ICBN)."
>
> Big gap here. I won't comment further.




_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these 
methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  
your search terms here