[Taxacom] DNA only descriptions

[Michael Wilson]

Dear all

What about species descriptions based on behaviour? I can imagine the
description of a species that is based on its separation from others
by behaviours- e.g. acoustic signals. In such cases the specimen
recorded may be indistinquishable morphologically from others but is
nevertheless be considered a new and distinct species.

Mike Wilson

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 4:16 AM, Kenneth Kinman <kennethkinman at webtv.net> wrote:
> 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?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>