[Taxacom] FW: DNA only descriptions

[Aurélien Miralles]

Dear taxacomers,

I consider myself as integrative taxonomist, because I consider that both
DNA and morphology are precious tool.
Nevertheless, it seems clear to me that describing the morphology of a new
species is obviously (always) essential, whatever the new species is
morphologically diagnosable or not.

(1) If two species are morphologically distinguishable : We have to describe
the morphology, because  it allows to the society (I mean almost everybody
that is motivated) to distinguish this species from the others
(identification).

(2) if two species are not distinguishable : Obviously, cryptic species
really exist. Some poeples may thus consider it is not necessary, in that
case, to describe the morphology. I would think exactely the contrary. If an
author says that these two species A and B are two cryptic species, he has
to give arguments supporting this statement.
That is why he must describe the morphology of this new species, just in
order to demonstrate that the morphology has been investigated, and that no
morphological characteristics have been found (on the examined characters).

Do not think I am niggling, or a morpho-extremist: I only mean that If not,
it would be indeed very easy for lazy poeples to declare that two species
are cryptic without having investigated morphology at all (actually I have
yet reviewed several poor paper like this), only because it may be
(according to some poeples) time consuming, boring or difficult.
...what would be a resignation of our basic responsabilities of taxonomists.



-- 
Aurélien MIRALLES, PhD

Postdoctoral researcher at the Zoologische Institut,
Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany

email : miralles.skink at gmail.com / amiral at mnhn.fr
website : http://amiralles.com/
mobil : (+33)(0)6 78 31 39 79