[Taxacom] very nice opinion article in today's Zootaxa
jshuey at TNC.ORG
Thu Sep 15 08:29:13 CDT 2011
I really meant stupid when I said "stupid names" although mean spirited also comes to mind..... They were specifically intended to insult key players here are some sample etymologies.
The name favilla, a feminine noun in apposition, means 'smouldering embers'. The species is named in recognition of the skipper taxonomist John M. Burns.
The name inflatio, a noun in apposition, means 'inflation', reflecting the large increase in apparent species diversity of the A. fulgerator complex resulting from the study of DNA barcodes
The name obstupefactus means 'thunderstruck'. This name seems appropriate for a sibling species of A. fulgerator, whose name means 'a priest who interprets
omens from lightning'.
The name fruticibus means 'from the bushes', referring to the fact that DNA barcodes from this species do not form a distinct group in the cladistic analyses of Brower (2006).
The name viracocha, a noun in apposition, is the name of a bearded white god of the Incas. The species is named for Dan Janzen.
Please consider the environment before printing this email
John A Shuey
Director of Conservation Science
jshuey at tnc.org
317.829.3898 - direct
317.951.8818 - front desk
317.917.2478 - Fax
The Nature Conservancy
Indiana Field Office
620 E. Ohio St.
Indianapolis, IN 46202
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Doug Yanega
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 7:10 PM
To: TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] very nice opinion article in today's Zootaxa
I had passed along this recent set of messages to a colleague who
does a lot of sequencing, and he had a response to John Shuey's
>Indeed - to follow up on Jim's comment, the Brower paper was
>intended as a provocation. Brower did not examine any material
>directly, or handle the actual types (his paper places them at U.
>Penn when they are really at the USNM) and pre-empted John Burns'
>long-term work to provide descriptive descriptions of these species
>based on a blend of adult and larval morphology, ecology and
>barcodes. We are left with 10 stupid names that no-one can tell
>apart without barcodes.... Quite a disservice in my mind and an
>absolute slap in the face to Burns and Janzen's efforts to get real
>descriptions of these bugs out....
To pass along my friend's comment:
"This is confusing, because if the barcoders' claims are correct
(which seems doubtful, but let's ignore that for the moment), then
Burns' study should find exactly 10 taxa, corresponding exactly to
Brower's 10 taxa, and everything should be fine. In other words, it
only partially pre-empts Burns' work, and then only if the barcode
phylogeny was 100% right, in which case the names are not at all
stupid. What Burns will accomplish then is adding more characters to
help recognize these species, which isn't an insignificant
contribution, given the impracticality of barcoding every specimen in
existence. He can still publish descriptions, and people will be
happy to have them. The only thing that would be pre-empted is the
actual authorship of the new names, and that's not much of a slap in
the face. But if Burns eventually comes to a completely different
conclusion, then that would mean that the barcodes were misleading
(and Brower was right to criticize that approach), and Burns' work
would be validated by virtue of proving the barcode phylogeny wrong,
allowing him to sink some of Brower's names into synonymy and
describe new species himself. His face would remain essentially
unslapped, aside from Brower's shameless sarcasm."
My own comment on this is to point out that, technically, even if
Brower cited the type depositories incorrectly, the Code
unfortunately does not require that what is published has to be
correct. Likewise, it can be argued that the "diagnostic characters"
might easily prove not to be diagnostic if more sampling were to be
done (i.e., that a "uniquely fixed state" proves later to be
variable), but this also still technically satisfies the Code.
Ultimately, the descriptions are technically Code-compliant, even if
erroneous, and even though treating codon position states as
diagnostic characters really stretches the Code. If there's any
controversy here, it's going to boil down to the taxonomy (which is
obviously contentious) rather than the nomenclature.
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
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
More information about the Taxacom