|
|
Post by saturniidave on Sept 17, 2012 15:22:48 GMT -8
Bill, I have heard from several sources that Messrs Brechlin and Meister do get a bit 'enthusiastic' with discovering and naming new species. I remain neutral in the matter but many other entomologists do not hold them in very high esteem. Several of their 'species' have been found to be synonyms.
I also believe that too much emphasis is placed on DNA sequencing at the moment, I believe it is still not 100% reliable as a determination tool and I have seen evidence of this myself in insects and Mollusca. In years to come I am sure it will be improved and refined to become a much more reliable source.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by oehlkew on Sept 18, 2012 2:46:01 GMT -8
Hi Dave,
I agree with your comments and have stated in my posting that there will probably be many synonyms, but I have not seen any of them published yet regarding the DNA results.
On WLSS I try to update as per published literature, and update/correct when new literature is published. Please let me know which species have been synonymized, and by whom (what publication), and I will update and cite author and publication on WLSS.
Because the WLSS also includes images of larvae in many instances, in several instances on WLSS I noted the differences in larval appearance and commented that perhaps more than one species is depicted, when only one species was designated in literature. Have a look at Arsenura orbignyana file and the new determinations put forward by Brechlin and Meister 2010-11 regarding A. angulatus which they removed from synonymity with orbignyana, and A. paraorbignyana
from Paraguay and Argentina which they designate as a new species.
I believe those changes are valid. Others who have not seen the larvae, might not think so.
I think as more rearing is done, often by hobbyists and not necessarily by
"educated, degree holding scientists" some of these issues will be sorted out.
If barcoding rules are in need of adjustment/refinement, then let the rules be adjusted. If Brechlin & Meister have not followed the rules, then condemnation is just; if they have followed the rules, and the rules are wrong, it is the rules that should be condemned. Sometimes I think we condemn people when all that has to be done is change rules.
I have read published reports by some scientists warning (regarding molecular analysis) of insufficient sample sizes for accurate assessments, and the caution of not allowing for individual variation within species, but I do not think their cautions, which seem very valid to me, have made it into the "rules book" yet.
Bill Oehlke
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2012 7:58:30 GMT -8
Hello,
I too think many of those "new species" are just synonyms of existing species, it does seem to me that many seem to forget about individual variation regarding different localities, etc. As Dave referred DNA sequencing isn't fully reliable, and I personally doubt it will be in the near future, one has to take into account many other factors which seem to be forgotten, as many want to name their own new species, or 50 of them. :-)
Thadeos
|
|
|
|
Post by thanos on Sept 19, 2012 7:29:15 GMT -8
#1 looks to be a very worn male of Copaxa rufinans or pararufinans. Is really the newly described pararufinans a valid species ? Maybe it's just rufinans. I have my doubts.
#2 and #4 (males) and #3 (female), these Copaxa are probably multifenestrata (or maybe mazaorum if they have big wingspan ?). Are really garciorum, multifenestrata and mazaorum different species ? Maybe the newly described garciorum and multifenestrata are subspecies of mazaorum ? To me all these 3 look more like subspecies (or local forms, slightly differentiated by size etc) of the same species than different species.
Thanos
|
|
