|
|
Post by africaone on Feb 14, 2011 8:05:15 GMT -8
Bob I have to say - barcode doesn't work yet for all groups (it is why I wrote "in the future"). - barcode gave much reliable result than those of most known specialist (give a saturniid to determine to any specialist and compare the result to those of barcode  ) - Of course DNa of old specmimen remain a problem but technic evolve (I have yet the barcode of old specimen and I know that research is made for very old one). In the case of non available DNA of the HT, two cases 1- the sp is easy to recognise and then not a problem to obatin the DNA profile, 2- the HT causes some problem, then it will under responsability of researcher to design a new reference (as we yet done for neotype) and in this this case anyway the HT is unuseful whatever the tool. - sp, ssp ... untrue. The dna give a % of concordance as for an estimation by a specialist for the taxonomic level to adopt. Depending the group the % has not the same value. It will probaly be necessar to decide a zero level, a new starting date for the nomenclature (like the departure date of the ICNZ). As it seems that 10 times more sp exist than the yet described ones, the latin binomial nomenclature will probably also be obsolete and a new one will be needed. "Barcode" term choice was not innocent ! I stop here because I hear yet all the voices crying that it is far of our passion. I am not a lawyer of that, I just try to imagine what will happen in the future. Thierry |
|
|
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Feb 14, 2011 8:38:19 GMT -8
I understand what you're trying to say Thierry. As you say, techniques evolve and they may before long give 100% accuracy, but I think that day may be some way off yet.
Whilst I was writing my previous post and mentioning the difficulties of most species which were described 100 years ago or more, I thought about the possibility that people would suggest starting again, invalidating unuseable types and using neotypes for those taxa. Obviously The Code does not allow for neotypes to be designated if any type specimen still exists, but I guess that in this scenario The Code would be abandoned.
As you say, for all these new techniques to work we may have to abandon The Code, and even Linnean nomenclature. I think there would be a huge amount of resistance to this and I can't see it happening in my lifetime so I won't worry about it for now.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Feb 14, 2011 9:00:45 GMT -8
... I don't think abandoning Linnean nomenclature should be too hard. Of course for ourselves it will as we all grew up with it but look at how long this nomenclature gets practiced, 350 years, that's a joke compared to how long humanity exists and even modern culture.
|
|
|
|
Post by maurizio on Feb 14, 2011 9:46:56 GMT -8
It is my problem, too!! Anyway, just a question, Thierry: why are you considering Barcode, or any other system of identification based on molecular sequences, as an ALTERNATIVE to morphology? I consider it, at best, as an additional "character". I mean: Papilio machaon, in my mind, would be defined as with four wings, six legs, two tails etc. etc. ....... AND with Barcode n° XYWZ! On the contrary, it seems you think that Papilio machaon would be defined as with four wings, six legs, two tails etc. etc. ....... OR, better, as with Barcode n° XYWZ! |
|
|
|
Post by maurizio on Feb 14, 2011 9:57:02 GMT -8
I would agree with Maurizio on PT role, they are useful. + if they enable describers to make a few money, I see no problem at all. Whereas most taxonomic work is done by amateurs, sale of few of their paratypes would be a small additional income to cover their costs. It is not my case, as I am a "romantic" (I'm too fond of my paratypes) and, most probably, also a little bit ....."chic"!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Feb 14, 2011 10:02:28 GMT -8
Yes Maurizio, that's why I still have my Delias madetes/kazueae waiting for your offers ... ;-)
Olivier
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by maurizio on Feb 14, 2011 10:05:07 GMT -8
Yes Maurizio, that's why I still have my Delias madetes/kazueae waiting for your offers ... ;-) Olivier They are still in your hands as I never received the parcel with Colias mossi from Peru!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Feb 14, 2011 10:16:53 GMT -8
Peruvian posts are impredictible ! ;-)
BTW if you need a non-romantic offer on your rare Delias to finance romantic studies on Catasticta, just send me an email ! :-)
Olivier
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Feb 14, 2011 10:42:29 GMT -8
Maurizzio
I place the debate at the nomeclatural level, not study on morphology or any other kind !
For you it is obvious to identify an insect on easy morphological character. Imagine anyone that have to cense all the fauna of an area (NP, island, etc ...). For him it has simply to barcode (or similar) the species he collected to know how many sp are involved and which ! He can do it for all the living macroorganism, quickly and with a high degree of reliability.
On another point, You speake about sp easily identifiable. I assure you it is easier and more reliable to make a barcode than a genitalia for many, many species nearly quite impossible to identify easily, even for a specialist.
There is a mixed situation. You have to know which sp of Papilio flying in an area (and you hesitate on the name because the population is not yet studied, you just know that it is of "machaon group "). You identify it first and then when you saw it again you know what it is.
Thierry
|
|
|
|
Post by maurizio on Feb 14, 2011 14:08:31 GMT -8
Maurizzio I place the debate at the nomeclatural level, not study on morphology or any other kind ! For you it is obvious to identify an insect on easy morphological character. Imagine anyone that have to cense all the fauna of an area (NP, island, etc ...). For him it has simply to barcode (or similar) the species he collected to know how many sp are involved and which ! He can do it for all the living macroorganism, quickly and with a high degree of reliability. On another point, You speake about sp easily identifiable. I assure you it is easier and more reliable to make a barcode than a genitalia for many, many species nearly quite impossible to identify easily, even for a specialist. There is a mixed situation. You have to know which sp of Papilio flying in an area (and you hesitate on the name because the population is not yet studied, you just know that it is of "machaon group "). You identify it first and then when you saw it again you know what it is. Thierry You are right! But one more question: who is charged to verify that barcode XYZ corresponds confidently to species XYZ? |
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Feb 14, 2011 15:18:25 GMT -8
this is the big question of the moment.
the first step is to construct a database with all DNA profiles available. This is the biggest activity of programs such as the barcode. Today a very high % of saturniidae and Sphingidae are yet done with more than 50 000 barcodes available that covers nearly all the known species (+ many new ones not yet described)
the second is to rely these profiles with existing names and create new names if needed (not far from the work we done actually). May be it will be necessary to create a new nomenclatural system more adapted to the computerisation of the system.
the next will be to structure (organise the database, access, a new code, etc, ...), probably helped by a kind of council for each group or family. see the tries done by barcode, CATE, etc. this last step is probably the biggest challenge as nothing serious exist and all need to be created.
A first consequence will be the "death" of the "The Specialist" (that will lost his aura of "Determinator"). For me not so bad thing as it will give us more time to make real entomology.
We live birth of a new era ! I am just curious of what will really happen.
Thierry
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Grinter on Feb 14, 2011 16:30:12 GMT -8
Addressing the barcoding and variation issue: having long series and sequencing gene data from every specimen is important. To build a fundamental understanding of the variability you do absolutely need to sequence as many species from as many different regions before you can address any basic questions. Some species have single nucleotide polymorphisms that are not indicative of a separate species - but just a pair of nucleotides that randomly vary. Finding a cryptic species within a population can only be done once dozens or hundreds or barcodes are run!
|
|
)
