[Taxacom] DNA only descriptions

Sat Aug 14 18:21:29 CDT 2010

well abstracts are there for an obvious purpose, so I think they are fair game 
for criticism

the whole abstract reads (my emphasis):

'Despite the widespread and common use of DNA sequence data to estimate 
phylogenies, support or contest classifications, and identify species using 
barcodes, it is not commonly used as the PRIMARY OR SOLE source of data for 
describing species. This is possibly due to actual or perceived pressure from 
peers to include morphology as the primary source of data for species 
descriptions. We find no compelling evidence to exclude DNA-only descriptions, 
or to insist that morphology always be included in a species description. It is 
not the data-type per se that is important, but the science behind the taxonomic 
conclusions. Using alternative kinds of data for descriptions should not cause 
problems for taxonomy IF LINKS ARE KEPT WITH TYPE SPECIMENS.'

Using their (faulty) reasoning, why bother with a description of any kind? Why 
not name species just by designating type specimens? They are missing the point, 
which is twofold:

(1) not everyone has access to type specimens, and they can be lost or 
destroyed, or rendered useless for identification, so total reliance on them is 
a bad idea

(2) the point of a description is to facilitate IDENTIFICATION of a taxon. Their 
suggestion is effectively just the removal of that facilitation!

Thumbs down to Invert. Systematics for publishing this rhetoric ...

________________________________
From: stuart longhorn <sjl197 at hotmail.com>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Sun, 15 August, 2010 9:02:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] DNA only descriptions

It doesn't appear to me that the article is released yet 

I can only see the abstract, including the quote 'We find no compelling evidence 
to exclude DNA-only descriptions, ...'

Should perhaps people wait to see the full-paper before crucifying them?
stuart

(it otherwise sounds to me like being willing to jump to conclusions from 
radical highlights [ie key snippets in the abstract =  a few radical DNA 
differences alone]  without the more protracted consideration of morphology and 
context [the core content of the paper and their expanded arguments]...)

> From: sevragorgia at gmail.com
> Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 11:48:36 -0600
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] DNA only descriptions
> 
> I remember that not so long ago someone somewhere attempted to
> describe a species using a diagnosis like follows (don't remember the
> exact words):
> 
> species A: gap in position 250-256...
> 
> referring to an ITS alignment... Too many people is interested in
> DNA-only descriptions because... well, they cannot do morphology... If
> there's no problem as long as the DNA sequence is linked to an
> holotype... then why not to describe the morphology of the holotype as
> well?
> 
> sergio
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 11:00 AM,  <taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to
> >        taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >        http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >        taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> >        taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Taxacom digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >  1. the end is nigh! DNA only descriptions ... (Stephen Thorpe)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 01:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> > Subject: [Taxacom] the end is nigh! DNA only descriptions ...
> > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Message-ID: <271106.71832.qm at web114216.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> >
> > 
>http://www.publish.csiro.au/view/journals/dsp_journals_pip_abstract.cfm?nid=121&ver=2&pip=IS10011
>
> >
> >
> > 'We find no compelling evidence to exclude DNA-only descriptions, ...'
> >
> > what "evidence" did they expect?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The entire Taxacom Archive back to 1992 can be searched with either of these 
>methods:
> >
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Or use a Google search specified as:  
>site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> >
> > End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 53, Issue 12
> > ***************************************
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sergio Vargas R., M.Sc.
> Molecular Geo- and Palaeobiology Lab.
> Dept. of Geo- & Environmental Sciences, Palaeontology and Geobiology
> LMU München
> Richard-Wagner Str. 10
> 80333 Munich, Germany
> tel. +49 89 2180 17929
> s.vargas at lrz.uni-muenchen.de
> sergio.vargasr at ecci.ucr.ac.cr
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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

_______________________________________________

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