3 research outputs found
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 & NemĂ©sio 2007; Donegan 2008, 2009; NemĂ©sio 2009aâb; 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: 42â50), depreciating the value of traditional â especially morphological â data in taxonomical studies as âmediocreâ and boosting instead the simplistic âbarcodingâ procedures as âobviously effi cientâ. Having explicitly stated my â as a âtraditionalâ taxonomist â âdecalogueâ, I show that accusation of âlust for monopolization of knowledgeâ and âvociferous hostilityâ towards the adherents of an alternate approach is glaringly misdirected by PACKER et al. and in fact fi ts much better the attitude of âbarcodersâ 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 âmediocrityâ, still usually (some special situations excepted) provide the most reliable source of evidence for taxonomic conclusions, whereas simplistic âbarcodingâ 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 âproxyâ