[Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions! - Round Three

Adolf Ceska aceska at telus.net
Tue Aug 4 13:30:29 CDT 2020

Rhizopogon kretzerae was described only from the DNA obtained from mycorrhizal roots of Pterospora andromedea and Pinus strobus - see 
https://www.ou.edu/cas/botany-micro/ben/ben516.html#3 (BEN plates do no work in the COVID-19 quarantine).
Index Fungorum does not see any problems with this:
What if Rhizopogon kretzerae does never produce fruiting bodies as the authors postulated?

Adolf Ceska, Victoria, BC, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Joey Slowik via Taxacom
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 10:45
To: Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz
Cc: Taxa com
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions! - Round Three

I haven't read Meierotto et al. (2019) but have done a bit with DNA barcoding. I don't see how that little bit of information could be used for species descriptions alone. There have been arguments for Generic elevation based on DNA barcodes with some success in crab spiders, for example Breitling, R. (2019a). But it seems like with spiders anyway you need some physical attributes as well, or more DNA.
This never rids mtDNA of always presenting the identification of the mother in introgression. In my work I have come across species which barcoded out as one species and morphologically was another. A clear sign of introgression, and would be an incorrect ID using barcode alone.

Just a couple thoughts

Joey Slowik

On 8/4/20, Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> Dear Taxacomers,
> I bring to your attention a new chapter on the Meierotto et al. (2019) saga:
> Zamani et al. (2020): The omission of critical data in the pursuit of 
> ‘revolutionary’ methods to accelerate the description of species.
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343408816_The_omission_of_cri
> tical_data_in_the_pursuit_of_'revolutionary'_methods_to_accelerate_the
> _description_of_species
> "In our eyes, methodological changes to the way species are delineated 
> and described are an important component of increasing the rate of 
> species description, but dismissing the existing literature, and 
> producing ‘descriptions’ that contain almost no information on the 
> morphology of species, its variation, their unique features, their 
> biology, or other aspects, do not constitute a revolution, and cannot be adopted."
> Kind regards,
> Carlos A. Martínez Muñoz
> Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit
> FI-20014 University of Turku
> Finland
> Myriatrix <http://myriatrix.myspecies.info/>
> ResearchGate profile
> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carlos_Martinez-Munoz>
> Myriapod Morphology and Evolution
> <https://www.facebook.com/groups/205802113162102/>

More information about the Taxacom mailing list