[Taxacom] DNA only descriptions

[Kenneth Kinman]

Hi Thomas, 
       Excellent point. And it fits into something I have
been thinking about today.  I would be comfortable with formally naming
new subspecies or varieties based on DNA sequences alone.  But when it
comes to full species, I think that requires additional data, especially
in the form of morphology. 
         And in the case of cryptic species that have
no obvious morphological differences, other criteria could be used (such
as differences in bird songs or other behavior, as Michael Wilson
suggested in his post).  Some (somewhat morphologically) cryptic bird
species have been discovered by differences in their songs, and then
further study actually revealed very subtle differences in morphology
that had been overlooked.  Following up with evidence with reproductive
interfertility (or lack thereof) where they meet, new decisions can be
made whether species or subspecies status is best supported.          
          Such a practice of formally naming subspecies, followed by
debates and further investigation as to possible separate species status
seems a good model in many cases.  If someone wants to begin this
process by naming subspecies on DNA only, I wouldn't generally object to
that.  However, formally naming full species by DNA alone does not sit
well with most taxonomists.  Many of these cases could be handled with
formal subspecies descriptions based on DNA alone, and then followed up
with more investigation to determine the possibility of full species
status when a lot more information has been gathered.
            -------Cheers,
                         Ken Kinman         
===================================== 
Thomas Pape wrote: 
              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?