[Taxacom] FW: DNA only descriptions

[Jason Mate]

 I´ll begin by saying that I fully agree that a morphological description in Zoology/Botany is necessary, but only because of the issue of accessibility and retrievability. There are many researchers who are using DNA data as well as morphology to carry out work and doing a good job I think. It is not a choice between good and evil, you can use either or both tools depending on the problem at hand. Sure, some people stink at it but there are cowboys in every field, no biggie. I think it would be better to argue that without morphological descriptions and background, the new species cannot be integrated into the existing body of work or be useful to those without the necessary facilities. 

So in my books a species may only be diagnosable by non-morphological traits and it doesn´t spell the end of civilization, but by adding extra information your description becomes accessible to all.

As for the paper in Inv. Tax., I don´t have access to it but it appears to be an opinion piece, so if you are opposed to the idea and have the time then publish a rebuttal.

And for those interested another good read:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17135463


Have a good one.


Jason

> Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:21:50 +1000
> From: mesibov at southcom.com.au
> To: kennethkinman at webtv.net
> CC: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] DNA only descriptions
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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