Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences

The question whether taxonomic descriptions naming new animal species without type specimen(s) deposited in collections should be accepted for publication by scientific journals and allowed by the Code has already been discussed in Zootaxa (Dubois & Nemésio 2007; Donegan 2008, 2009; Nemésio 2009a–b; Dubois 2009; Gentile & Snell 2009; Minelli 2009; Cianferoni & Bartolozzi 2016; Amorim et al. 2016). This question was again raised in a letter supported by 35 signatories published in the journal Nature (Pape et al. 2016) on 15 September 2016. On 25 September 2016, the following rebuttal (strictly limited to 300 words as per the editorial rules of Nature) was submitted to Nature, which on 18 October 2016 refused to publish it. As we think this problem is a very important one for zoological taxonomy, this text is published here exactly as submitted to Nature, followed by the list of the 493 taxonomists and collection-based researchers who signed it in the short time span from 20 September to 6 October 2016

Taxonomy and the mediocrity of DNA barcoding - some remarks on Packer et al. 2009: DNA barcoding and the mediocrity of morphology

The paper is a reaction to that published by PACKER et al. (2009, Molecular Ecology Resources 9, Suppl.1: 42–50), depreciating the value of traditional – especially morphological – data in taxonomical studies as “mediocre” and boosting instead the simplistic ‘barcoding’ procedures as “obviously effi cient”. Having explicitly stated my – as a ‘traditional’ taxonomist – ‘decalogue’, I show that accusation of “lust for monopolization of knowledge” and “vociferous hostility” towards the adherents of an alternate approach is glaringly misdirected by PACKER et al. and in fact fi ts much better the attitude of ‘barcoders’ themselves; while point-by-point evaluation of the arguments and examples set forth by them allowed to refute both their main claims and confi rm once again that morphological data, far from being accusable of “mediocrity”, still usually (some special situations excepted) provide the most reliable source of evidence for taxonomic conclusions, whereas simplistic ‘barcoding’ is obviously ineffi cient in basic research (as opposed to some practical applications) and thence unqualified for the role of anything more than occasional preliminary ‘proxy’