[Taxacom] DNA only descriptions

[Kenneth Kinman]

Dear All,
      I would also agree with Sergio's point.  If you have a holotype,
then there is no excuse for not also describing the morphology.  If one
has the ability to describe it, not doing so is a sign of laziness.  If
one does not have this ability, one should find a co-author who does.   
      If one is in so much of hurry to publish that they cannot do the
above, then call it Xus species Y3489 (or whatever).  In other words,
don't formally name it until you or a collaborator can properly
described it. Bacteriologists do this all the time, although in those
cases they are environmental sequences which have no type specimen per
se to actually describe.  If you have a type specimen, there is no good
excuse for not describing its morphology or finding someone who can.
Authors should not take such shortcuts, and if they try to, editors
should intervene.
         ---------Ken Kinman                  
--------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Vargas:
       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?