Iris Publishers
Authored by Jo Darlington
In order
to collate and interpret. observations - experimental or observational - it is
vital to know the identity of the subject organism.
To
achieve this, a taxonomic system was devised over several hundred years.
Descriptions
of species range from a few words in Latin, to modern treatments with a full
morphological description of a type specimen, supported by tables of
measurements, line drawings to scale, and sometimes electron micrographs. But
however inadequate the original description, the species name cannot be changed.
It can be superseded by a published re-description of the original type
specimen, or if that is lost or damaged, of a formally designated replacement
type. Generic names, which define the group to which that species belongs,
represent a particular expert’s opinion and can be changed by publishing a
reasoned argument.
These two
names, the Generic first (with a capital letter) then the specific (in lower
case), define the species. At intervals it is necessary to revise a genus or
higher taxon, to bring the descriptions of all species up to the same high
standard, and to tease out those pesky synonyms that arise when the same
species has accidentally been described more than once.
A
revision is hugely worthwhile, as it enables everyone working on that taxon to
be confident that they are really reporting on the same species.
Great
advances have been made in recent years in the use of molecular sequencing in
taxonomy, but the data is used very differently. Each sequence represents an
individual organism, but it is not a type specimen.
The study
subjects are (provisionally) identified by their morphology, as before.
Sequence data from many individuals can be used to formulate a new definition
of a species. It can also be used to construct a phylogeny, the equivalent of a
family tree for each species, including its relationships to other species and
to higher taxa, and the relative evolutionary time separating them.
However,
for work on populations in the field, it is not possible to sequence every
single individual organism. Morphological taxonomy is still essential, and the
two approaches complement each other. But there is now a great disproportion in
the resources available. The exciting new molecular studies get the research
funding, but morphological taxonomy is regarded as old-fashioned and
expendable. If we allow them to get too far out of step, we may regret it.
Fungus-growing
termites (Macrotermitinae) provide an example of what problems the current
state of taxonomy can throw up. They are a monophyletic group that originated
in African forests and later spread to the African savannas and to the tropical
forests of SE Asia. There are 322 described species overall, of which 172
belong to the genus Odontotermes [1]. That genus has never been revised since
it was set up in 1912. Species show great variation in morphology, and the
genus clearly needs to be split. Preliminary work on molecular sequencing
carried out at Cambridge [2,3] indicated a split into two major groups. Several
discrete groups were given provisional or doubtful species names, and several
synonymies were suspected. No funding could be obtained to continue the work.
Although it is a large, widespread and ecologically important group, very
little work has ever been done on it because so many species cannot be securely
identified, and that makes it difficult to publish results.
This
example also illustrates how important it is to collect and keep voucher
specimens from the field, so that the species identity can be verified when a
group is revised. Otherwise hundreds of hours and many years of work might be
under-valued or wrongly applied, or even lost to science. Fully labelled
voucher specimens should be deposited in a permanent, well-maintained
collection such as that of a specialist Museum or University.
Acknowledgement
To read more about
this article: https://irispublishers.com/wjass/fulltext/whither-taxonomy.ID.000622.php
Indexing List of Iris Publishers: https://medium.com/@irispublishers/what-is-the-indexing-list-of-iris-publishers-4ace353e4eee
Comments
Post a Comment