[Taxacom] DNA only descriptions

[Jason Mate]

Stephen,

I was a bit pressured for time so I apologise for not finishing the email properly. I admit that using the ´c´ word was not in the best style, a lapse of judgment in the heat of the exchange.
To avoid endless confusion I will break i down:
1-Cryptic species are real entities. You may dislike them philosophically because they provide the raison d'être for molecular techniques (or karyology), but such is life.
2-I agree that there are lots of work to be done but what constitutes basic taxonomy is not based on a predetermined subset of the available data. If cryptic species are indeed common then they represent a significant portion of biodiversity and deserve as much attention as the "easy" stuff.
3-Human perception (i.e. general public) of arthropods is nonexistant. By this measure of relevance Zoologists should only work on vertebrates of more than 500g. Anything smaller can be dealt with by the local pest controller. Ditto with fish, divide them between anglers and fishery managers.
4-The study of biodiversity requires diffferent kinds of equipment. If you want to study mites for instance, you need pretty expensive equipment. You or I can afford it of course but a microscope plus the chemicals needed to make the slides are expensive and beyond the means of most of humanity. Should we therefore ignore mites? Or microstaphs? Somebody else always has better toys so you have to adjust your research to the means at your disposal.
5-The people with the purse like bling. We have to sell ourselves better or else add a CSI look to the enterprise in order to get a slice of the ever-diminishing resources. I do not like it myself but humans are like this so you´ll have to either play the game or move to a more philosophically pleasing planet.

The topic at the heart of this is Lyn Cook´s paper (barcoding is not the same and both Thomas and Doug have already commented on this and I agree so no need to repeat). I think that with one possible exception (not quite sure what Kim´s view is) everybody agrees that DNA-only taxonomy is a bad idea. The issue is compatibility with existing data: when previous but perfectly good data is rendered useless for the sake of something new. Still, like it or not we have to integrate molecular data into the existing edifice and not pigeon-hole it because of our preconceptions of the data or its users.

Cheers

Jason

P.S. personally the lack of information access is the biggest stumbling block in taxonomy.
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:07:41 -0700
From: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] DNA only descriptions
To: jfmate at hotmail.com; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu



Jason,
I assume you were talking to me in particular? You misrepresent my views. Think of it this way: there is an effectively infinite amount of taxonomic work needing to be done before we can fully understand the world's biota. Therefore we need to prioritize. The only thing I object to is wasting time and resources on molecular taxonomy of "cryptic species" when it is relatively remote from human experience/perception, only verifiable by people with access to the relevant equipment (thus alienating most of the world), and there is a whole heap of more *basic* taxonomy left to do in many groups (like mites and beetles, etc.)  Somehow, *basic* has become synonymous with *not worth doing*, and it looks better on a CV to have done molecular stuff instead. But *basic* actually means fundamental - the basis upon which all else is built. If this makes me a "creationist", then "praise the Lord"!
Stephen





From: Jason Mate <jfmate at hotmail.com>
To: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Tue, 17 August, 2010 10:48:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] DNA only descriptions




I think (correct me if I´m wrong) that your species concept is typological. It must be, simply because to believe in an "only morphological taxonomy" entails viewing species as isolated idealised types. I am not saying you are a creationist, but you are focusing on the human experience/perception of biodiversity and have jettisoned the rest.

That said there has been a lot of (undeserved) fanfare surrounding the barcoding initiatives and other related projects and I agree that a significant portion of resources are going to these. These biologists are just
 marketing themselves as best they can and have hit on a good formula. Something else will come along in the future no doubt. Nevertheless, shutting yourself from a source of data (regardless of the sort, so it is equally applicable to Lyn Cook´s minions), because you think it is lazy, is a moral stance. 

Best 

Jason

                        
_______________________________________________

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