[Taxacom] RES: Re: quality control of taxonomic work

Mon May 7 07:38:34 CDT 2012

Considering an "ideal procedure" or not to apply singletons, the point is
many taxa were described with poorly sampled material. I do not have a real
number to plants, but many of them have only one sample (holotype) to the
science.

So, you choose: to describe or not a species based in only one sample? 

Regarding the urgency to survey our real biodiversity, I guess the question
is already answered.

Best wishes,
Vitor

-----Mensagem original-----
De: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] Em nome de Chris Thompson
Enviada em: 07 May, 2012 8:34 AM
Para: Damien HINSINGER; TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
Assunto: ***SPAM*** Re: [Taxacom] quality control of taxonomic work

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 

_______________________________________________

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
-----
Nenhum v?rus encontrado nessa mensagem.
Verificado por AVG - www.avgbrasil.com.br
Vers?o: 2012.0.1913 / Banco de dados de v?rus: 2425/4981 - Data de
Lan?amento: 05/06/12