[Taxacom] FW: preprint out - "Is it time to describe new species without diagnoses? - A comment on Sharkey et al. (2021)"

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Jun 9 04:44:28 CDT 2021


 Why not have two parallel naming systems? Under the circumstances, it would make a lot of sense.
    On Wednesday, 9 June 2021, 08:46:04 pm NZST, Andrew Whittington <awhittington at flyevidence.co.uk> wrote:  
 
 #yiv5772878950 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}Great article Frank!
Especially the point about not creating two parallel naming systems ....
Kind regards,Andrew
====o0o====​
Andrew E WhittingtonConsultant Entomologist, PhD, FRES MCSFSZootaxa Editor: Diptera & small orders of insectsZooNova Entomology Editor
https://flyevidence.co.uk/ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0465-1172
https://www.linkedin.com/company/flyevidence/





From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: 08 June 2021 22:30
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; Frank T. Krell <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
Cc: Dirk Ahrens <ahrens.dirk_col at gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: preprint out - "Is it time to describe new species without diagnoses? - A comment on Sharkey et al. (2021)" Hi Frank,Your article seems well balanced, so that's good. We all know that DNA only descriptions are a really bad idea. One thing though, and forgive me if you have said this already somewhere in the manuscript (no time to read it all in detail), but the only real problem is with the description of new species. Scientists who work with DNA can probably do lots of very useful things, but they should not base new ICZN (or ICBN) species names on DNA only. This needs to be made very clear, I suggest. They can still estimate the number of species in an area (or at least in a sample) using DNA, for biodiversity estimates, etc. They could create their own system of nomenclature, so that they can talk about species amongst themselves, purely in terms of the DNA. That would be OK, but they need to stay away from traditional taxonomy using ICZN (and ICBN) names. The two systems are incompatible. DNA can still inform traditional taxonomy, and potentially solve various problems. It is merely the issue of basing new species names on DNA only that is problematic.Cheers, Stephen
    On Wednesday, 9 June 2021, 06:55:29 am NZST, Frank T. Krell via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote: 
 
 Hi all,

maybe some of you might be intersted in the preprint of our manuscript with the title:
"Is it time to describe new species without diagnoses? - A comment on Sharkey et al. (2021)"

It is available on Zenodo:

  *  DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4899151<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dx.doi.org_10.5281_zenodo.4899151&d=DwMFAg&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=0dKKCbLpmQdJFjZyUmOJ0zynkd3L5iKZhe8uuB-rQwE&m=yToMPvXO0pFdMp8o4NquJQoQS1ny93cy7dbnT6Bohxk&s=Wc8VVY2ciZffA0A7GRgzVDu9FgA650TPa-pYS01dRvM&e=>
or on Researchgate:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352121016_Is_it_time_to_describe_new_species_without_diagnoses_-_A_comment_on_Sharkey_et_al_2021/stats<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.researchgate.net_publication_352121016-5FIs-5Fit-5Ftime-5Fto-5Fdescribe-5Fnew-5Fspecies-5Fwithout-5Fdiagnoses-5F-2D-5FA-5Fcomment-5Fon-5FSharkey-5Fet-5Fal-5F2021_stats&d=DwMFAg&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=0dKKCbLpmQdJFjZyUmOJ0zynkd3L5iKZhe8uuB-rQwE&m=yToMPvXO0pFdMp8o4NquJQoQS1ny93cy7dbnT6Bohxk&s=q-zUEZx628sZvd6kut9f0FV19ydUoLgS1NZ3ohTRj0w&e=>


Enjoy,

Best wishes

Dirk

and Frank


Dr. Frank-Thorsten Krell

Senior Curator of Entomology, Editor-in-Chief
Commissioner and Councillor, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Department of Zoology
Denver Museum of Nature & Science
2001 Colorado Blvd
Denver, Colorado 80205-5798, U.S.A.
Frank.krell at dmns.org<mailto:Frank.krell at dmns.org>
Phone 303.370.8244
Fax 303.331.6492
https://www.dmns.org/science/zoology/staff/frank-krell/

We are OPEN<https://bit.ly/2YApSao>! Explore ancient mysteries and modern discoveries in "Stonehenge"<http://bit.ly/3epLv6v> the exhibition. And investigate patterns and numbers hiding in plain sight in “Numbers in Nature: A Mirror Maze<https://bit.ly/2RiFa3A>.” 
¡El museo está ABIERTO<https://bit.ly/2YApSao>! Explora los misterios antiguos y los descubrimientos modernos en la exhibición "Stonehenge"<https://bit.ly/3epLv6v>. Y descubre los patrones y los números que se esconden a simple vista en "Los Números en la Naturaleza: Un Laberinto de Espejos<https://bit.ly/2RiFa3A>". 


_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
  
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
  


More information about the Taxacom mailing list