Taxacom: Response to Rheindt et al. Diagnoses and ICZN

[Art Borkent]

	I am responding to the recent paper by Rheindt et al on diagnoses and proposals for changes to the ICZN.  These are my thoughts:

 	It is certainly an excellent idea to tighten the definition and presentation of diagnoses, as I argued in my 2021 paper “Diagnosing diagnoses – can we improve our taxonomy?” in ZooKeys 1071: 43–48. However, I think the article “Tightening the requirements for species diagnoses….” could be strengthened.

It could be made more clear that a diagnosis be separate from a description. Descriptions of new species are often lengthy and should indeed provide clear and thorough evidence that the newly described species is distinctive from all other species; it should include all the evidence the species is distinct. Diagnoses should also provide evidence of a distinct taxon but be minimalist, a confirmation of an identification by others using the work. I am unsure whether this should be a rule or a recommendation, but in large measure, those who use our taxonomic work generally desire to have a confirmation of an identification after using a key (which are often challenging). For those of us who are unfamiliar with another group (which includes for me, nearly all the other groups other than my own), a direct confirmation by the author(s) would be comforting. Failing that (the vast majority of the time), a simple statement “This is the only species of genus x with … (a feature or a minimum set of features)” would be extremely helpful.  It should provide the answer for the reader “Yes, I have correctly identified it or No, I need to go back to the key”. This provides the reassurance of correct identification. As the situation stands now, most diagnoses (in Diptera at least) are too lengthy and ultimately unclear whether all the features need to be checked or not (mostly not). I would like to see the ICZN make either a rule about a simple, succinct presentation of diagnoses or at least a strong recommendation.

And this brings up another point. Who is in “our community”? The article by Rheindt et al. suggests our cliental are “biologists”. For most taxonomists, however, their writing clearly reflects an assumption that the reader is intimately familiar with the group.  Especially in a time where taxonomy is often seen as irrelevant, authors should be encouraged to present diagnoses that can be used by a much broader community of scientists and, if we really want to expand the usefulness of our work, of interested amateurs. 

In summary:

1. Make a strong distinction between descriptions and diagnoses.

2. Diagnosis should be simple, short, succinct (see Borkent, 2021).

3. Remind users of ICZN that our community should include even amateurs.

 A final, non-related point: the article notes that bar-coded diagnoses might state “.. new species differ from all other species of the genus by two synapomorphies in the CO1 gene:”  In reality, virtually no presenters of barcodes discuss synapomorphies and this would be a new arena for many, including developing some skills in cladistic thought and analysis.  That would be an excellent idea.

Dr. Art Borkent
691-8th Ave. SE,
Salmon Arm, British Columbia,
V1E 2C2, Canada.
 
Phone: (250) 833-0931
Email: artborkent at telus.net
Webpage: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fartborkent.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce3767de431484424433908dbcb505b84%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638327318233184208%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=A0zuARwBwtvzjRxHspbG8TVBxLUkLfqyBvdFauN0bPg%3D&reserved=0

Research Associate of the Royal British Columbia Museum and the American Museum of Natural History
 
      "Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit"