Taxacom: Response to Rheindt et al. Diagnoses and ICZN

Wed Oct 18 21:19:15 CDT 2023

 Francisco,
You seem to be making the distinction between diagnosis and description in a very nonstandard way! I think you may be confusing a description with what I would call a treatment. Both are longer than a diagnosis. A treatment is a diagnosis and/or description, plus some nomenclatural details (such as the name of the taxon, type data, etc.)
A diagnosis allows the reader to distinguish the species from all other *known* species. Suppose the species is the only one with two heads. The diagnosis need only mention the two heads. However, down the track, another new species might be discovered which also has two heads, but other differences. Hence the previous diagnosis fails to distinguish between the two two-headed species. That is why we need a longer description, just in case another new species is discovered later which also agrees with the diagnosis.
This is all pretty standard stuff, from "Taxonomy 101", I would have thought!

Cheers, Stephen
    On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 03:03:23 pm NZDT, Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:  

 Dear Art,
It is necessary to distinguish between taxonomy and nomenclature. The 
terms "diagnosis" and "description" have different meanings in the two 
disciplines.

In taxonomy, these are headlines of chapters or paragraphs, but 
apparently the two terms are not used in the same sense in all animal 
groups. This is a question of style. In molluscs a diagnosis is a short 
text, while the description is a long text. In other animal groups this 
may be different.

The Code cannot consider this. The Rheindt et al. paper employed the 
terms for nomenclatural purposes. We have been asking ourselves which 
should be the requirements for the Code. A species diagnosis in this 
sense is one that satisfies the provisions of the Code. A species 
description is a successful proposal of a new name in combination with 
some information that is required for making the name available.

Taxonomists can employ the terms "description" and "diagnosis" in their 
taxonomic studies following the traditions in their animal groups. It is 
no problem to continue in the same frame in the future.

The Code can only require the presence of a text with a certain content, 
and cannot regulate the length and style in which the information is 
presented. In this case, at least one character state to distinguish a 
taxon from a closely related taxon needs to be given. The Code cannot 
regulate in which style this should be satisfied, and cannot regulate 
that a short and a long text need to be provided. This is all up to the 
authors. The Code only requires a minimum frame.

Best wishes
Francisco

-----
Francisco Welter-Schultes

Am 12.10.2023 um 20:23 schrieb Art Borkent via Taxacom:
>     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%7C0732511ca0534b139c9308dbd049cc7b%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638332787605016316%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BwrV%2FTnoOOEjQ9PlwTR1Eet7iPvl9x6K45Qb4UD4wv8%3D&reserved=0
> 
> Research Associate of the Royal British Columbia Museum and the American Museum of Natural History
>  
>        "Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> 
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C0732511ca0534b139c9308dbd049cc7b%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638332787605016316%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yahTVG2%2BG4jrK3eLkfC%2BabP0qOAhriLp1Nh6Gg%2FFbl0%3D&reserved=0
> 
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for about 36 years, 1987-2023.
> 
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C0732511ca0534b139c9308dbd049cc7b%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638332787605172497%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RjV7TVbzCudB%2F8RzGbc%2BK%2B89u1PNb66t6C%2FHFG8%2F1rE%3D&reserved=0

Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for about 36 years, 1987-2023.