[Taxacom] DNA only descriptions

Tue Aug 17 18:20:43 CDT 2010

>Cryptic species are real entities
Now who sounds like a creationist?? [just kidding!!]

I'm just not convinced that there is a proper distinction between species and 
lineages in the minds of molecular taxonomists, and that the more time spent 
looking for "cryptic species" in any particular case, the more you will seem to 
find, ad infinitum, and who cares anyway?

Who said "human perception" had anything to do with the general public? I 
didn't!

> if cryptic species are indeed common then they represent a significant portion 
>of biodiversity and deserve as much attention as the "easy" stuff
Well that is the moot point in a nutshell ... are they real? If real, are they 
common? If real and common, then do they in fact deserve as much attention as 
the "easy" stuff? At least they probably don't deserve more attention ...

Stephen

________________________________
From: Jason Mate <jfmate at hotmail.com>
To: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Wed, 18 August, 2010 10:25:23 AM
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