[Taxacom] DNA only descriptions

[Stephen Thorpe]

>Whilst at the BMNH I remember at least 2 sepparate projects to automate species 
>identification. Both used morphology. The dream to automate identification is 
>pervasive and not the domain of one or another group. Whilst it might be 
>entertaining to identify organisms it is a practical matter of workload 
>management

otherwise known as "cutting corners" - BMNH isn't what it was ...




________________________________
From: Jason Mate <jfmate at hotmail.com>
To: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Sun, 22 August, 2010 9:49:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] DNA only descriptions





Bit of a mish-mash as I am catching up

> (1) good for whom? Good for some, certainly. How much effort should go in to 
> trying to make this a reality? Does this mean we should all stop descriptive 
> taxonomy and work on developing this idea instead until it is a reality? What 
>if 
>
> it can't be done after all? Might not this idea just rip the guts out of 
> taxonomy, leaving an empty and uninteresting shell? What if you enjoy trying to 
>
> identify things? What if it really does require a spark of talent that can't be 
>
> automated?

Whilst at the BMNH I remember at least 2 sepparate projects to automate species 
identification. Both used morphology. The dream to automate identification is 
pervasive and not the domain of one or another group. Whilst it might be 
entertaining to identify organisms it is a practical matter of workload 
management. "Never have so many asked so few to identify so much"


> 
> (2) IN THEORY this is true, but:
> (2a) this is no argument for not also describing the morphology; and
> (2b) "cryptic species" seem a bit dodgy to me - maybe you can find as many of 
> them as you look for? Maybe these genetic lineages are not what we mean by 
> species, anyway? I bet most good morphospecies are a single species, and that 
> problem cases are relatively few and far between...

Species do not originate to please taxonomists. What for us might be cryptic for 
the organisms may be chalk and cheese. Which also brings me to the issue of the 
nature of cryptic species. Whereas it is possible that some cases are the result 
of incipient or recent speciation, character suits do not necessarily evolve in 
tandem and their rates often differ dramatically. So two taxa which are 
morphologically identical may in fact be behaviourally, biochemically, 
phenologically, etc. different. But when all you have is the corpses there is 
not much else to compare is there? So although I believe that a proportion of 
cases are in fact "soft" cryptics (sloppy morphologicaly work, lack of material 
to assess variability, ...) others will be "hard" cryptics. No wanting to sound 
repetitive, the Anopheles gambiae group proves that bags of money and research 
can come up empty-handed. Most taxa will never be scrutinised like this.

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