[Taxacom] DNA only descriptions

[Jason Mate]

Whee bit delayed but I am trying to keep with the spirit of one-a-day.

I actually made it quite clear that congruence of several datasources is to be prefered but it seems that simply by not attacking molecular data I have become the de facto devil´s advocate. So be it. In response to Tom, traits such as singing come to mind as non-morphological. Not very useful with museum specimens either. And anybody who has to routinely identify insects knows the limits of morphology. Often females are impossible to identify except by association or specimens must be compared to reliably identified material (chicken and egg problem). Also dissecting the genitalia is unavoidable (try doing that in the field). Any wonder only butterfly watching has taken-off! My point is that morphological differences are important to us but not necessarily to the organism. I always get a chuckle reading Mayr´s example of PNG natives recognising the same species of birds as ornithologists. Humans, are humans and they break the world down not at its joints but according to the patterns they see. 

Ken, naming a subspecies or a species makes no difference really: you are stating a hypothesis, which you support with data (traditionally morphology, later eco/ethological traits and lately molecular data). A cryptic species is not a cheap species. Accepting that morphology may not pick-up all of biodiversity is not a surrender. And species (the philosophical concept) only exist until the next revision... our very own uncertainty principle. I agree however in your assertion that molecular data is best suited to split these cases. It is a point-less exercise to use it when a cursory visual examination will give you the I.D. (sorry Kim, tricorders are expensive flights of the imagination). 

Stephen, you are the exact opposite of Lyn Cook. Morphology only and then we´ll see if we need DNA. I repeat, all available data must be used in the description. That said, a taxon may have "identical" morphology to another (kudos to Aurelien for bringing this up) and still be a good species and described based on other data, whatever that may be. Karyotypic species have been around for decades and not everybody has access to the facilities to carry out this sort of work. Also as  much as I would like to dedicate my life to the study of mites, I kinda like beetles so if some are cryptic, I´ll stick with them and still consider my output as important.

Bob, yes, my point all along is how to integrate the new data with the existing database. In particular Richard´s nicely put biodiversity ´´dark matter´´. Not just the weird and wonderful but the species which are hidden in plain site (cryptic species). Like the microscope, karyology and other tools, DNA offers another view. All previous ones have added, not supplanted data and molecular data is no different. I agree that Lyn Cook´s premise is weak, but the fallacy of her position lies in the essence of what science is. Data is data and Ms Cook´s attitude is to purposefully ignore data (Kim, sorry to say this but yours too). This is contrary to science. Alas, arguing that DNA data is somewhat tainted and should be ignored, downgraded or what have you is just daft.


Best

Jason