[Taxacom] DNA only descriptions

[Stephen Thorpe]

I don't think these issues are being "mixed up" - they are related issues (two 
sides of the same coin). If morphological recognition is not facilitated in the 
original description, then we are sliding away from what taxonomy is all about 
(with nomenclature as a "support structure" for taxonomy). To name a new taxon 
on DNA only would deprive most of humanity any chance of being able to recognise 
it, unless someone went to the trouble of subsequently linking the name to a 
species by way of the DNA characterisation and then describing its morphology. I 
suspect it would be too hard to keep up with the cheap and easy "DNA species" 
that the molecular "taxonomists" could churn out ad nauseam. The status quo is 
the proper sequence (no pun intended!) of events, i.e., characterize the new 
taxon first by morphology (thereby naming it), and THEN analyse its DNA if you 
must ...

Stephen




________________________________
From: Thomas Pape <TPape at snm.ku.dk>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Mon, 16 August, 2010 1:29:08 PM
Subject: [Taxacom] DNA only descriptions

Two issues are increasingly being mixed up in this discussion -- NOMENCLATURE 
and TAXONOMY:

NAMING: What descriptive evidence should be required (in addition to the 
name-bearing type itself) for making a scientific name of a species-group taxon 
available?
RECOGNITION: What kind/amount of data will be minimally sufficient (or minimally 
admissible, or best suited, etc.) for the recognition of a taxonomic species?

/Thomas Pape, Natural History Museum of Denmark

_______________________________________________

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