[Taxacom] Integrative taxonomy

[Richard Pyle]

It's a labelling system.  Whenever we have a need to talk about something,
it's useful to label it.  The FIZ paper explains why we are encountering
many, many more "somethings" (units of biodiversity) due to new data, and
there is a growing need to label those units in some fashion, to facilitate
commincation amongst biologists.  So there are four basic options:
 
1) Label those somethings with standard Linnaean species names;
 
2) Create an entirely separate labeling system (ala Phylocode), with little
or no relationship to the existing Linnaean naming system;
 
3) Don't label the somethings at all; or
 
4) Come up with a higher-resolution naming scheme that harmonizes (as much
as possuble) with the existing Linnaean naming system.
 
The problem with #1 is we are likely to be producing large numbers of
synonyms with formal Linnaean names, because many of the "somethings" are
distinct enough to label, but there is insufficient confidence to reach the
traditional threshold for what ought to get a Linnaean species name. As more
information ebcomes available, many of the names will be synonymized.
Moreover, it would most likely amplify the lumper/splitter disjunct, which
means that contemporary biologists will not be consistent in what they use
to refer to populations (much worse than the simple problem of tracking a
bunch of stably synonymous names).
 
You already know the problem with #2, based on your previous posts.
 
My guess is that you would prefer #4, which I can understand, but don't
really agree with.  I suspect that if we simply try to ignore the problem,
we'll more likely end up going down the path of #1 or #2.
 
That's why I favor #4; starting with the mechanism we already have but
rarely use (Linnaean subspecies), then developing a standardized method to
label units that don't quite rise to the level of subspecies (or that
involve units of biodiversity not already nested within an existing species
name). My main point is that the morphospecies folks are already heading
down that path, and it would be best if we had only *one* coordinated
approach to encoding units of biodiversity that, for whatever reason, are
not yet ready to be labelled with formal Linnaean names.
 
Aloha,
Rich


  _____  

From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz] 
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 11:00 PM
To: Richard Pyle; Bob Mesibov
Cc: TAXACOM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Integrative taxonomy


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
>