[Taxacom] quality control of taxonomic work

[Chris Thompson]

Sorry, ALL, but ...

The remark "... There is a lot of simple examples (most of mammals, birds, 
etc) where the species are morphologically weel-defined. But in others 
groups (worms, fishes, insects, etc), the delimitation of species could be 
not so easy. " clearly reflect a lack of understanding of at least INSECTS 
and their taxonomy.

Many insects have been and are still being described from SINGLETONs. I 
have, for example, a very pretty new species of Ceriana (Diptera: 
Syrphidae), a flower fly, from Central Africa. There is no question that 
this represents a new species as the differences between ALL previously 
described ceriodine flower flies are so obvious.

Why a singleton? Poor sampling. And this is a mimetic species, therefore of 
low population levels.

BUT given that our task is to try to enumerate the biodiversity of our 
world, then describing new species in groups like insects is and will remain 
critical.

On the issue of QUALITY CONTROL of taxonomic work, for me the critical 
factor is the traditional factor of HOW WELL did the author integrate new 
finding with old ones. Unfortunately (at least with insects) the answer is 
usually not well. The common approach is simply I have a wonderful, distinct 
new species, etc. and no effort is spent on assessing what other "wonderful, 
distinctive new species" have been previously described!

So, Today a paper that describes new taxa without proper and comprehensive 
assessment of all prior work / described taxa is poor quality, but common.

SECOND and at least for insects, many workers still do not understand that 
taxonomy is a SCIENCE, not a hobby like stamp collecting. New species are 
not new "stamps," in the sense of something different. New taxa are new 
scientific hypotheses.

Why is this critical? In the assessment of older taxa (that is, taxa 
described in earlier times) descriptions provide minimal character 
information. Fortunately in many cases there are VOUCHERs (that is, type 
specimens) to allow subsequent workers to mine additional character 
information. However where vouchers are not available, does not mean that 
those older/earlier hypotheses should be ignored. Simply that those 
hypotheses must be evaluated on terms of what was provided / published and 
resolved accordingly, etc. Not simply ignored as nomina dubia, etc.

Oh, well ...

We have a wonderful, diverse World. We need to make an inventory of this 
diversity before much of it is lost forever. So, yes, our samples may be 
small, but with what we have we should try to understand our biodiversity, 
which means integration of past, current and future work on that 
biodiversity.

Sincerely,

Chris

from home

-----Original Message----- 
From: Damien HINSINGER
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 3:39 AM
To: TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] quality control of taxonomic work

I agree with your commentaries about bad and good taxonomists.
However, if you find a bigfoot looking like we can "imagine" it, it will 
appear clearly that is a new species. But, if you find a population of 
bigfoot (you're very lucky ;-) ), there will be likely somme differences 
among individuals, and the description will be not so clear as previously 
thought.... There is a lot of simple examples (most of mammals, birds,etc) 
where the species are morphologically weel-defined. But in others groups 
(worms, fishes, insects, etc), the delimitation of species could be not so 
easy.
In these cases, many individuals could be necessary to accurately assess the 
species diversity.
Not a simple question....
Damien



Le 7 mai 2012 ? 09:22, Cristian Ruiz Altaba a ?crit :

> I cannot understand why size matters so much.
>
> If you were to get hold of a single Bigfoot, would you wait to have 30 
> specimens in order to perform an obvious T-test of height difference with 
> Homo sapiens? Sometimes you really need statistics, often you don't. And 
> even when you use sophisticated math, the number of specimens actually 
> included in the analysis may be just a small sample of those examined.
>
> I know beetle specialists who can tell a new species with an eyeblink, 
> because they are comparing with millions of other specimens they have 
> examined. And viceversa, I know malacologists who see new taxa without 
> even having ever seen most of the closely related species --so I don't 
> trust them.
>
> So looking at number of specimens in the description is not reliable. 
> Eventually, it is a bit more complex --taxonomists are human, bad 
> taxonomists don't understand the basics of statistics, and good 
> taxonomists have expertise.
>
> Best,
>
> Cristian
>
> -----taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu escribi?: -----
>
> Para: TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
> De: Damien HINSINGER <hin175 at free.fr>
> Enviado por: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Fecha: 07/05/2012 09:01
> Asunto: Re: [Taxacom] quality control of taxonomic work
>
> I think some taxonomic journal impose 30 individuals to publish measures 
> with standard error, that is, in my humble opinion, a minimum requirement 
> for asses the intra-specific diversity, even in a new species.
> However, there is many cases where we do not have enough specimens... the 
> ideal world vs. the real world ;-)
> Damien
>
>
> Le 7 mai 2012 ? 08:53, Stephen Thorpe a ?crit :
>
> > Many taxa are described on the basis of singletons ... sometimes it is 
> > clear, sometimes it isn't (i.e, sometimes the singleton itself isn't 
> > clearly a new taxon, but sometimes it seems to be, but additional 
> > material makes it less clear) ...
> >
> >
> > From: Donat Agosti <agosti at amnh.org>
> > To: TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
> > Sent: Monday, 7 May 2012 6:26 PM
> > Subject: [Taxacom] quality control of taxonomic work
> >
> > Is there a similar study that assess the taxononomic work we produce, 
> > such
> > as how many specimen where at the base for the description of taxa?
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/c5fw7n8
> >
> > How many specimen are usually used - are expected to be used for making 
> > a
> > sensible taxonomic decision?
> >
> >
> >
> > Donat
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > 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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > (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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > (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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom 
your search terms here