[Taxacom] New lizard species

[Robin Leech]

Or, it could be that they just have not looked carefully enough for
morphological characters.  My suggestion is to give the specimens,
several from each DNA group, to a lizard taxonomist.
On several occasions I have looked at collections of spiders and at
first glance figured that they were all representatives of the same species.
but, when I sorted according to locality, then looked again, I did find all
the morphological characters I needed.  I am sure that most morphological
taxonomists have had this experience.
And I will acknowledge that these lizards might represent a population that
is on the verge of splitting - has done so with DNA, but has not done so yet
with morphology.
Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kim van der Linde" <kim at kimvdlinde.com>
To: "Robin Leech" <releech at telusplanet.net>
Cc: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New lizard species


> Yes, that would be a way out of it, but they state explicitly that there
> are no morphological or ecological difference. So, we have four lineages
> described as species.
>
> Kim
>
> On 6/5/2010 4:40 PM, Robin Leech wrote:
>> Why don't we take the individuals that have solid DNA differences,
>> then when these are sorted, start looking for external morphological
>> characters that confirm the DNA?
>> Robin
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Kim van der Linde"<kim at kimvdlinde.com>
>> To: "TAXACOM"<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>> Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 12:26 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New lizard species
>>
>>
>>> I just read the article, and I have mixed feeling about the article.
>>>
>>> 1. The central idea is that we can determine species limits by
>>> estimating where solid differences in the DNA can be found, as estimated
>>> using specific Bayesian methods.
>>>
>>> 2. The species concept used here is a strict phylogenetic species
>>> concept. Whether or not this corresponds with species using the
>>> biological species concept is unclear.
>>>
>>> 3. The number of individuals used for some populations is as low as one.
>>> if you have a single outlier. Humm, so much for an estimate of
>>> population variance, which is at the heart of the idea.
>>>
>>> 4. The use of guid trees is problematic at least. Why 4 species, and not
>>> 5, 6 or 3. If you a priori start with 4, you of course can find four. As
>>> long as you have well-supported nodes with a posterior probability of 1,
>>> you can determine species. The fact that the 10-species guide tree
>>> provides FIVE species should have resulted in major alarm bells.
>>>
>>> 5. They use the SAME data to first estimate the species, and then to
>>> estimate the probability of those species. This is a circular process.
>>> You need two separate data sets to do this. This sounds way to much to
>>> self-conformation.
>>>
>>> Overall, I am not buying this article. Maybe when it is done properly,
>>> with sufficient number of individuals per population, independent data
>>> sets and a search algorithm that determines what number of species is
>>> actually explaining the data the best, I might be persuaded to accept
>>> these phylogenetic species, in the context of phylocode.
>>>
>>> Kim
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/4/2010 8:19 PM, Bob Mesibov wrote:
>>>> If you haven't seen it, do read
>>>>
>>>> Leache, A.D. and Fujita, M.K. 2010. Bayesian species delimitation in
>>>> West African forest geckos (Hemidactylus fasciatus). Proceedings of
>>>> the Royal Society B. Published online as doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0662
>>>>
>>>> In a well-argued and very clear paper, the authors plump for
>>>> probabilistic determination of species, and name four *Linnean*
>>>> species on probabilistic grounds. They say '...we are not aware of
>>>> any morphological or ecological characteristics that differentiate
>>>> these lineages,' and therefore diagnose their species as follows (one
>>>> example):
>>>>
>>>> 'Diagnosis. This species includes all populations that cluster with
>>>> those from the southern portion of the Congolian rainforest included
>>>> in this study (southern Cameroon, Gabon and Congo), with strong
>>>> support in the Bayesian species delimitation model.'
>>>>
>>>> I don't actually have a problem with the methods used or the
>>>> argument. My concern is that the authors confuse Linnean species with
>>>> lineages. Lineages can be diagnosed within a probabilistic framework.
>>>> They give us an insight into how evolution might possibly have
>>>> happened. Linnean species are those nice, easily recognised things
>>>> that enable us to retrieve biodiversity information, write field
>>>> guides and feel that we have a handle on natural history.
>>>>
>>>> It's been obvious for a long time that Linnean taxonomy and molecular
>>>> taxonomy were headed in different directions, but this paper (IMO) is
>>>> a clumsy attempt to yoke them back together.
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://www.kimvdlinde.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>
> -- 
> http://www.kimvdlinde.com
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>