[Taxacom] Taxonomic haves/have nots

[stuart longhorn]

Some good points Bob, 

Now then, where feasible, shouldn't many of the taxonomists doing new species descriptions be 
encouraged to at least preserve voucher tissue for DNA work from their new species?
If for example the morphologists in question cant do molecular studies for whatever reason, surely it is
still useful for them to be encouraged make the material available to future DNA work.

This could easily become a standard recommendation of reviewers or editors.

I understand in many cases will be totally impractical to preserve tissue from types, ie on small specimen and to prevent damage to
the newly elected types, but in many cases, with larger specimens and topotypes, its possible to preserve some tissue.
For example, i work on large arthropods, and routinely take a little internal tissue from new morphological vouchers for DNA preservation.

Shouldn't newly described type material be amenable to all taxonomic tools, whatever your preference or practical reality?

When my study animals have sat in a warm jar of 70% IMS for 10 years...DNA becomes challenging to amplify/sequence, 
so, in hindsight, some tissue stored ten-years ago at -80 in absolute ethanol would have helped alot. Now consider 100 years+.

I understand molecular biology will be transformed in 10 years, but when any modern taxonomic revision is underway
it is often the responsibility of curators in the type repository to decide whether type material is made available
for study or not. Could easily be the same whether or not voucher tissue is made available to a proposed DNA study.

Greetings to all.
s

> > ------------------------------------------------------------------- 

> > 

> > Stuart Longhorn, MSc PhD 

> > PostDoctoral Fellow. 

> > National University of Ireland, Maynooth, IE 

> > 

> > Email: sjl197 at hotmail.com or stul at pdx.edu 

> > 

> > ------------------------------------------------------------------ 

> > 

> > http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/people/a.vogler 

> > http://web.pdx.edu/~stul/


> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:50:22 +1000
> From: mesibov at southcom.com.au
> To: emilylgillespie at gmail.com
> CC: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] Taxonomic haves/have nots
> 
> Just back from the field, going through the DNA-only thread, found your message and its comment
> 
> "2) 'traditional taxonomists are happy to have molecules'... 'Happy to *have*' seems to imply that some molecular systematist will be kindly generating those data for a 'traditional' systematist to *have*. Good enough, but I have not heard criticism directed toward morphologists (or biochemists or paleontologists...) failing to include molecular (or ecophysiological or biogeographical, etc) data in their studies."
> 
> Your inference is correct, there are a lot of very capable, very experienced, traditional taxonomists waiting for a molecular systematist to generate data. I hope you're not surprised. Some of those expert taxonomists live in countries where molecular taxonomy is unaffordable. I know one such person, a young and very keen specialist in a SE Asian country, who still works with an ancient binocular microscope because his institute can't afford a new one. Other specialists live in richer countries but have no money to pay for the materials and analytical services needed to do DNA taxonomy. Still others in richer countries might be able to get the money to fund molecular systematics, but the local lab(s) is(are) fully booked with better-funded or higher-priority projects. Until Kim van der Lande's dream comes true and DNA taxonomy is dirt cheap and universally available, you'll just have to be patient with traditional taxonomists who are happy to have molecules.
> 
> Second point: both morphological and molecular taxonomists are often missing 'auxiliary' data in their studies. The reason is often the same in the two cases: the species is rare and they only have a specimen or two. For a very, very large number of arthropods, the material available to the morphotaxonomist is a single specimen in a museum, collected from some faraway location, with no prospects of getting out decent DNA. It would be very nice to be able to hop on a plane with a field assistant or two, travel to that locality and find lots more specimens, do a proper mapping of the species range, get ecological and life history data, parasite and predator info, etc etc plus enough tissue properly prepared to prime out the genes/fragments of choice. Because this is a wildly improbable fantasy, taxonomists tend to be very tolerant of published studies that contain nothing more than a short description and a few line drawings.
> 
> Regards,
> Bob
> -- 
> Dr Robert Mesibov
> Honorary Research Associate
> Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
> School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
> Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
> 03 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> Webpage: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/?articleID=570
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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