[Taxacom] Integrative taxonomy

[Stephen Thorpe]

I just don't see how creating a new class of "provisional names" helps - it 
doesn't make the species distinctions any more or less clear, and we just have 
to track a whole load of new names ...




________________________________
From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; Bob Mesibov 
<mesibov at southcom.com.au>
Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Sun, 1 August, 2010 8:39:30 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Integrative taxonomy


As Bob said, it's not limited to molecular evidence of species divisions.  We 
morphologists often encounter cases where we see consistent morphological 
differences, but don't feel confident that sufficient genetic isolation exists 
to warrant recognition at the species level.  Would these two populations 
interbreed?  Do they? When did they last? When will they next?  I see no 
conceptual difference between such morphology-based cases and cases where 
genetic information reveals patterns of potential difference, but not 
sufficiently so to establish new species-level names.  The FIZ paper (rightly, I 
think) warns of the perils of not getting coordinated on this reality soon 
("this reality" being a new fire-hose of genetic information that may 
potentially influence our interpretations of what sets of organisms are best 
represented by Linnaean species names).  But I agree with Bob that the issue is 
not limited to genetic data.
 
Rich


________________________________
From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz] 
>Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 10:29 PM
>To: Richard Pyle; Bob Mesibov
>Cc: TAXACOM
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Integrative taxonomy
>
>
>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
>> 
>
>
>
>