InsectNet forum

There is no mention of either DNA or genitalia in The Code. The Code only covers nomenclature, not taxonomy.

bobw wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2024 11:38 am There is no mention of either DNA or genitalia in The Code. The Code only covers nomenclature, not taxonomy.

But the Code specifies what elements must be met in order to describe a species right? So for example, you have to specify the etymology of the name, the type location, and the description of the proposed new taxon must also meet some minimal standards. Sure, you don’t have to describe the genitalia or DNA, but my point is that it’s 2024…shouldn’t there be a description of those things? DNA is an integral part of pretty much any study these days revising a species or genus or whatever.

As for peer review, yeah of course it’s not a perfect process, and perhaps entomology is especially bad, given Vernon’s statements. I mostly deal with papers in the medical and experimental fields, and there, peer review doesn’t seem as irrelevant. Regardless though, an imperfect system is better than none at all. The reviewers may not be experts in that field and may miss a bunch of things, but I don’t see how having someone look over your paper is bad. We have spellcheckers on our computers and we sometimes say to our friends or colleagues, hey can you look this over once and let me know if there are any glaring errors. That’s basically what peer review is.

I agree with much of the last post by eurytides, except

eurytides wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 5:22 am But the Code specifies what elements must be met in order to describe a species right? So for example, you have to specify the etymology of the name,

There is absolutely no requirement in the Code to specify the etymology of a new name, and in fact the word 'etymology' does not occur anywhere in the Code.

eurytides wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 5:22 am DNA is an integral part of pretty much any study these days revising a species or genus or whatever.

I agree that most modern papers include DNA analysis as at least part of the justification for conclusions found in the work, but there is no reason why this should be mandated in the Code. DNA can certainly be a good indicator for which morphological characters are important in a classification and which are not, but even in DNA analysis there can be very different results depending on which and how many genes are included. Trees based on COI only can look very different to those based on a large number of genes or the whole genome. Interestingly, in some groups COI tree topology is really well resolved and is the same as that for whole genome analysis, but in others COI analysis produces completely unresolved trees with specimens from each population mixed up across the whole tree.

Adam.

The Code is available online so there's no excuse for any taxonomist to not be fully conversant with it. There are one or two grey areas where a second opinion may be necessary, but in general, it's pretty straightforward. Certainly, anyone publishing any revisionary work need to ensure that they adhere to it.

The word "etymology" is not used in the Code, but the Code "recommends" the author should state the derivation, which amounts to the same thing doesn't it? Or have I misunderstood the situation and "recommendations" are just things that would be nice to do but not absolutely necessary to do?

"Recommendation 25B. Derivation. In publishing a new scientific name an author should state its derivation."
https://www.iczn.org/the-code/the-code-online/


As for DNA, yes I agree it's an imperfect tool. But I do believe it's an important tool that should form PART of a description of a new species when trying to justify it as something new. Here's what the commissioners of the ICZN had to say about the subject:

"Modern advances in DNA sequencing hold the promise of facilitating descriptions of new organisms at ever finer precision but have come with challenges as the major Codes of bionomenclature contain poorly defined requirements for species and subspecies diagnoses (henceforth, species diagnoses), which is particularly problematic for DNA-based taxonomy. We, the commissioners of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, advocate a tightening of the definition of “species diagnosis” in future editions of Codes of bionomenclature, for example, through the introduction of requirements for specific information on the character states of differentiating traits in comparison with similar species. Such new provisions would enhance taxonomic standards and ensure that all diagnoses, including DNA-based ones, contain adequate taxonomic context. Our recommendations are intended to spur discussion among biologists, as broad community consensus is critical ahead of the implementation of new editions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and other Codes of bionomenclature."

Source:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10443861/

But back to the topic at hand though, which is bjorkae. For me, when dealing with closely related groups like canadensis, glaucus, spring form, MST...etc, personally, I'm hesitant to believe something is a new species without some molecular work. Genomics, mtDNA, allozymes...something.

"Recommendation, n.
An advisory statement in an Article of the Code. Recommendations are denoted by the number of the Article, are not mandatory and are distinguished from the mandatory provisions by a capital letter following the number of the Article (thus, Recommendation 40A)."

Just found this definition of "recommendation" in the Code and it says not mandatory. I stand corrected! Chuck and I are working on describing MST and one of the entomologists we are working with (legit professional with a PhD) said that we needed to include a derivation for the name we proposed. Unfortunately, I just accepted that as fact without checking.

It may only be a recomendation, but it's still good practise.

bobw wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 3:16 pm It may only be a recomendation, but it's still good practise.

Oh I agree, but Adam was right in saying it wasn’t an absolute requirement.

I agree that it's good to state the etymology of a new name, unless it is absolutely obvious from the description.

Non-compliance with a recommendation in the Code does not make a new name unavailable, unlike non-compliance with actual articles.

Adam.

I've been holding off on posting this until I was sure of my facts, but I discussed it with staff at the Natural History Museum yesterday and it appears to be correct.

Obviously accessibility and cost is a barrier to the analysis of genetic material from a specimen, but one other major problem is the Nagoya protocol. This states that in order to extract genetic material from a specimen, you have to have permission from the country of origin of the specimen. This presents multiple problems; first you have to identify who you need to ask in each country, and you could be dealing with multiple countries. Then you have to hope that they will reply, and you have to ask 3 times before a "no reply" is admissable. Then you have to hope that permission is given, which will not always be the case. Evidently the museum employs one full-time member of staff just to deal with these issues.

This is all very well for a large institution like that - and they find it an absolute nightmare, but an amateur researcher would find it almost impossible to jump through all the hoops required, even if they could find the resources to get the samples analysed.

In countries which are signatories to the Nagoya protocol, it's actually illegal to extract genetic samples without the appropriate permission and in theory you could be prosecuted. Of course, one country that hasn't signed up to it is the USA, so I guess they get to do what they like.

The sidebar discussion on publishing the description of a new taxon which has taken most of this thread is quite interesting. It will make a good reference, perhaps it should be pulled out and lumped under a more applicable topic.

Rules, including ICZN, as well as academic "suggestions", formats of the paper and terminology, and preferences (e.g., genetic testing) stratifies the ability to publish a new taxon description such that the ability to do so is largely outside the ability of smaller institutions, citizen scientists, and those who live amongst the subject taxon.

To itemize some of the challenges to the lesser-endowed:
1. No money for $200 reference books
2. Publications hidden behind paywalls
3. No money for travel to institutional collections
4. English (and certainly Lepidoptery) as a second language
5. No credentials or membership as required to participate & publish
6. No money for even COI testing, no lab within 1500km

On it's face, a citizen scientist from, for example, Solomon Islands is in a perfect position- it would take less than a week to find a new taxon that is clearly unique; they have word processors and computers and the internet. So presumably nothing would stop said enthusiast from describing a new species- except the reality of the academic environment.

adamcotton wrote: Sun Oct 20, 2024 6:12 pm If two populations are consistently visibly distinct in the vast majority of specimens then they should deserve subspecies status whether or not they are genetically different at all.

This shocked me so much I had to ponder it for days.

First, it really caught me off guard that Adam, of all people, being so taxonomy-minded would hold such a liberal perspective; I thought Adam would be more strict and "by the book."

Beyond that though, doesn't it open the door to commercial dealers naming forms as species? In thinking of the COI tree I have for the eastern Tiger Swallowtails, from that it's clear that if Pavulaan names bjorkae and we are naming MST, there are other stand-outs that equally should be described (perhaps even moreso!) To make it more complicated, there are at least two other populations of Tigers (one I have, the other I've seen photos of) that are really, really morphologically distinctive....should those also be described? [these are on my "to look into and get genetics" list]

Further, Pavulaan's bjorkae is described with the subject having a limited range. The other Spring Form throughout US eastern seaboard/ New England are not included in bjorkae. As I've voice, JHyatt's SF and our local SF and the SF an hour north of where I live are each morphologically distinct. My next project plan was to study SF, and while Pavulaan may have scooped me, then again he may not have. I've kept these differences in my mind as perhaps forms, perhaps hybrids; I am hesitant to name each as unique taxon, pending further analysis. That said, reflecting on Adam's comment, is doing so a disservice to science? Each is unique in some way, do they not merit recognition?

On another note, Harry did tell me why he was motivated to describe bjorkae fast, w/o genetics, which is to head-off a potential cluster (American colloquialism) which would exacerbate problems I've been struggling with during my research.

Chuck wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2024 12:23 pm

adamcotton wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 1:12 am
If two populations are consistently visibly distinct in the vast majority of specimens then they should deserve subspecies status whether or not they are genetically different at all.

This shocked me so much I had to ponder it for days.

First, it really caught me off guard that Adam, of all people, being so taxonomy-minded would hold such a liberal perspective; I thought Adam would be more strict and "by the book."

Beyond that though, doesn't it open the door to commercial dealers naming forms as species?

Commercial dealers like Oberthür and many others?

Actually my statement was not 'liberal'. It is generally accepted that if two populations of the same species can be distinguished consistently in the vast majority of specimens then they are worthy of subspecies status. Of course the new subspecies must also be distinguishable from the other subspecies of the same species, not just one of them.

My point was that subspecies often have very little (or no) genetic difference to other subspecies of the same species, at least in their COI 'barcode' gene.

Adam.

With regard to Papilio bjorkae and other 'glaucus' putative taxa, it is good to put a name to those that can be defined morphologically and then see what genomics uncovers. I suspect that it will take much more than just COI to sort out this complex.

Adam.

I should add also that under the ICZN Code, a new taxon only needs to be PURPORTEDLY different for the published name to be available.

13.1. Requirements. To be available, every new name published after 1930 must satisfy the provisions of Article 11 and must
13.1.1. be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon,

It doesn't actually matter whether the stated characters really do differentiate the taxon ... that is for a subsequent taxonomist to decide, and is an important distinction between the purpose of the ICZN Code to govern nomenclature only, not taxonomy.

Adam.

adamcotton wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2024 8:30 pm With regard to Papilio bjorkae and other 'glaucus' putative taxa, it is good to put a name to those that can be defined morphologically and then see what genomics uncovers.

Adam.

Really? But all I've read for decades is big fights over what's not a valid subspecies (which predates genetics) and synonymization. I'm so confused.

So then, since our Spring Form is not bjorkae, and the one up on the lakeshore isn't the same either, I should describe two new...species? Subspecies? The ones on the lakeshore I suspect are hybrids, because as one goes east 70km around the end of Lake Ontario, there must be a heavily hybridized zone, because 30km north of there they are canadensis.

Would one name a suspected hybrid?

Worse, when I was in PA chasing MST I caught some Speyeria cybele because they were (1) right there and (2) looked much darker. I just pulled a pair off the board. Now that you've said that, I looked at iNat and couldn't find a match, so I pulled some more out of the freezer (these were going to go to Dr. Hyatt.) So how would I know if these are a unique ssp or a form?

This has rather turned my methods upside down. I have tons of specimens that don't match the nominate, accepted morphology.

Chuck wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2024 8:56 pm Would one name a suspected hybrid?

It would certainly not be a good idea to describe a specimen known to be a hybrid, especially if artificially produced ... these latter are excluded from the ICZN Code under article 1.3.3.

ICZN Code article 17 covers hybrids and names proposed for them:

Article 17. Names found to denote more than one taxon, or taxa of hybrid origin, or
based on parts or stages of animals or on unusual specimens. The availability of a name is not
affected even if
17.1. it is found that the original description or name-bearing type specimen(s) relates to more than one taxon, or to parts of animals belonging to more than one taxon; or
17.2. it is applied to a taxon known, or later found, to be of hybrid origin (see also Article 23.8); or
17.3. it is based on only part of an animal, or one sex, or one stage in the life cycle, or one of several dissimilar generations, or one morph or caste of a polymorphic species, or a parthenogenetic form, or a specimen which is an unusual example of the taxon (for exclusions see Articles 1.3 and 45.6).

The names of species such as Papilio appalachiensis which are of hybrid origin, but not actually direct offspring of two different species are covered by article 17.2.

In the case of the various populations of 'glaucus' you and other people have identified as potentially different species of hybrid origin there would be no issue under the Code if they are named, as long as purported distinguishing characters in words can be stated in the descriptions. One problem with defining a new taxon by its COI sequence is whether or not 'AGGT' versus 'TGGT' is actually words or not.

Adam.

adamcotton wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2024 9:40 pm the Code if they are named, as long as purported distinguishing characters in words can be stated in the descriptions.

Interesting note, particularly the bold.

I've oft wondered, if given only the written description if I'd be able to draw and color the taxon. Probably not. I also have noted that is generally where the errors are- swapped references to images, wrong side of butterfly, etc....right through all peer review.

I'd rather have an image with arrows pointing to the various aspects, or however marked, as done on MST by Wang and Schmidt. And side-by-side images contrasting to related taxa.

Not knowing how old the code is, I wonder why (somewhat obvious) the "in words" requirement. Is there a requirement for color images?

bobw wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2024 9:16 am but one other major problem is the Nagoya protocol. ...
In countries which are signatories

I'm sure you mean "problem" differently than do I, but that's not the only problem with Nagoya.

In USA, at least (and this holds true with CITES), once US is a signatory then the international agreement becomes de facto law; changes to that agreement are automatically adopted as US law without review by lawmakers (which itself is illegal- so go figure.) Worse, these changes are at best published in the Register (like a big, boring national notices newspaper) so nobody sees them, and they are not codified into law so you can't look them up in the federal laws.

That's why I'm untrusting of international agreements. It's not the concept, it's the implementation.

AFAIK there are no laws requiring compliance with ICZN so in theory English as a Second Language or those who don't speak English could still publish a new taxon. In practice though most publishing channels are going to force compliance. Just like laws, ICZN goes on for pages and pages in minute detail, and to understand and memorize the rules could take a long time- years? Some might argue that the intent is well, but it marginalizes citizen scientists with the bureaucracy. Order has a cost.

Chuck wrote: Mon Oct 28, 2024 5:47 pm I've oft wondered, if given only the written description if I'd be able to draw and color the taxon. Probably not. I also have noted that is generally where the errors are- swapped references to images, wrong side of butterfly, etc....right through all peer review.

I'd rather have an image with arrows pointing to the various aspects, or however marked, as done on MST by Wang and Schmidt. And side-by-side images contrasting to related taxa.

Not knowing how old the code is, I wonder why (somewhat obvious) the "in words" requirement. Is there a requirement for color images?

The ideas behind the Code were developed over a period of many years from the mid 19th Century to the mid 20th Century, with important principles proposed in 1930, culminating in the first edition of the ICZN Code published in 1961. Subsequent editions (currently the 4th) updated rules in such a way that changes did not apply retroactively. Thus there are clauses 'before 1930', 'after 1960', etc.

There is absolutely no requirement for images at all in descriptions. In reality a single sentence stating perceived (i.e. 'purported') difference(s) from previously named taxa is sufficient to give the name availability. For example, an author could state 'The new taxon has a red head whereas other taxa have black heads.', which alone would be sufficient. Of course nowadays such a short description would be thought of as poor taxonomy, but the name would still be available. Obviously augmenting the description 'in words' with images, with or without pointers is useful, but not at all mandatory.

Note also that statements of clear differentiation are only a recommendation, not mandatory:

Recommendation 13A. Intent to differentiate. When describing a new nominal taxon, an author should make clear his or her purpose to differentiate the taxon by including with it a diagnosis, that is to say, a summary of the characters that differentiate the new nominal taxon from related or similar taxa.

It is also worth mentioning that the criteria for publication are not as tight as Chuck may think. As long as the publication does not contravene articles 8 and 9 (in particular, plus others), and if it is electronic only (not produced on paper) it complies with ALL requirements in the 2012 amendment then the publication is considered valid under the Code.

Article 8. What constitutes published work. A work is to be regarded as published for the purposes of zoological nomenclature if it complies with the requirements of this Article and is not excluded by the provisions of Article 9.
8.1. Criteria to be met. A work must satisfy the following criteria:
8.1.1. it must be issued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record,
8.1.2. it must be obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by purchase, and
8.1.3. it must have been produced in an edition containing simultaneously obtainable copies by a method that assures numerous identical and durable copies.

There are (even today) cases where one person is author, editor, reviewer and publisher of his own journal in order to publish his own papers without 'interference'. I don't want to be more specific (naming names), but I assume this happens across Zoology, not just in Lepidoptera. Taxonomists just have to deal with issues in all nomenclatural works that are validly published.

Adam.