[Taxacom] DNA only descriptions

[Bob Mesibov]

Ken Kinman wrote:

'Authors should not take such shortcuts, and if they try to, editors should intervene.'

Which editors, Ken? Haven't we just had a wonderful example of junk taxonomy (the Leache et al. African gecko paper) published in Proc Roy Soc B?

In any case, a holotype + DNA-only diagnosis is *not* enough. Please read

DeSalle, R., Egan, M.G. and Siddall, M. 2005. The unholy trinity: taxonomy, species delimitation and DNA barcoding. Phil Trans Roy Soc Lond B 360 (1462): 1905-1916 (available online as HTML at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1609226/)

specifically the Muntiacus rooseveltorum example. Understanding the taxonomic background of a group is an essential prerequisite to doing its taxonomy. Of course, that takes time and work, and as Sergio Vargas points out, DNA-only proponents are looking for an easier path.
-- 
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