[Taxacom] quality control of taxonomic work

[Karl Magnacca]

On Mon, May 7, 2012 7:34, Chris Thompson wrote:
> 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.

This, and the rest of Chris' comment, hits the nail on the head.  Of
the three groups of insects that I work on in Hawaii (a relatively
well-sampled place), I would estimate that at least 70% of the
species are not known from more than 30 individuals, ever.  That
includes species that were described over 100 years ago.  Many,
including many of the most interesting, are singletons or from two
or three.  Should we just leave them all to decay namelessly in a
drawer, including things that may be extinct?

The quoted bit also arguably gets it backward - mammals and birds
have a great deal of variation in various forms of morphology, while
insects may be differentiated based only on the consistent placement
of a few hairs or structural details of the genitalia.

Karl
=====================
Karl Magnacca
Research Entomologist
Division of Forestry & Wildlife
808-756-4631