[Taxacom] DNA only descriptions

[Robin Leech]

Hi Jason,

Your discussion is good.  The siginificance of it is that some morphological 
taxonomists are used to sitting in a chair and looking at dried or wet 
(alcohol) specimens. Somehow they pickup/perceive a species problem that has 
2 or more cryptic species.  They know they will HAVE TO do some field work,
perhaps even some extended field work.

This might actually be a good thing if the taxonomist states for the 
specimens before him, "2 or more cryptic species", and then leaves the work 
for a
graduate student, and then goes off to do other morphological taxonomic 
problems.

Cryptic species can come in several main forms and includes: seasonal; 
allopatric (which includes geographic and altitudinal); behavioral; and 
chemical (pheromones).  A competent morphological taxonomist can explot the 
allopatric aspects (e.g., separate all those collected at 1500 m alt from 
those collected above 3500 m alt; those in different valleys from one 
another; those on nearby but separate hills or mountains; etc.).  The 
taxonomist can also start checking
to see if there are seasonal "clumpings" (some in May and early June, none 
in July, some in August).  What it means is the morphological taxonomist is 
using non-morphological features to assist in a taxonomic problem.

I know the seasonal and allopatric systems work, as I have used them to 
solve taxonomic problems.  Behavioral might take a lot of field time, and
chemical - well I just don't have the facilities for it, and don't know 
anyone who has.  But the options are there.  Who knows?  It might be easier 
to
do these than try to tie in with a molecular person.

Of course I am thinking that the taxonomist has more than 2 or 3 specimens, 
as issues of cryptic species usually come in when there are many specimens
to consider.

Robin


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jason Mate" <jfmate at hotmail.com>
To: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] DNA only descriptions

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


_______________________________________________

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