Is it time to describe new species without diagnoses?—A comment on Sharkey et al. (2021)

Abstract

New methods in taxonomy and systematics can influence the overall practice of formally naming and describing biodiversity. DNA barcoding has been controversial since its emergence, but now, large scale species descriptions exclusively based on barcodes have created what can be called a ‘new quality of performance’. Its limitations are discussed from different perspectives: nomenclature, general pragmatism, and problems of DNA-based species delimitation in the light of the central aim of achieving a robust and stable nomenclature of organisms, essential for all applications of biodiversity research. This issue needs to be addressed to prevent restraining the progress of taxonomy and its ability to contribute to modern science.

Current State of DNA Barcoding of Sciaroidea (Diptera)—Highlighting the Need to Build the Reference Library

“…Real cryptic species will, by their nature, have an elusive status since they are only accessible to those with the means and funding to sequence or barcode their samples in a specific manner. Hence, such cryptic "barcode species" may be better characterized only by their genetic characteristics without being given new Linnean names, a proposition held, e.g., by Ahrens et al [84]. In this context, it should be noted that for herbivorous, gall-forming Cecidomyiinae, a different practice of species diagnosis is sometimes used.…”

Braconidae (Hymenoptera) parasitoid wasps as a model group for turbo taxonomy approaches: lessons from the past and recommendations for the future

“…I strongly recommend the reading of papers such as Pinheiro et al (2019), Dupérré (2020), Zamani et al (2020), Ahrens et al (2021), Engel et al (2021, Meier et al (2021), Srivathsan et al (2021) and references cited there (other papers provide slightly different alternatives or approaches, and are also recommended reading, e.g., Brower (2010), Blaxter (2016), Goulding & Dayrat (2016), Renner (2016), Brown & Wong (2020), Vences (2020); this list is not exhaustive). And to present a more complete and fairer picture, the reader should also consider a second paper by Sharkey et al (2021b) which tried to provide counterarguments to some of the received criticism (although that paper has also been met with additional counterarguments on its own, e.g., Ahrens et al (2021), Engel et al (2021 and Meier et al (2021)).…”

“…In the months following that paper, the scientific community has engaged in lively discussions about "how useful" such descriptions are, whether they in fact impede the cataloguing of biodiversity, "how valid" (from the ICZN perspective) those species are, and general issues about the future of taxonomy, shortcomings of BINs and even BOLD (e.g., Ahrens et al 2021, Engel et al 2021, Meier et al 2021.…”

Documenting trumpet leaf-miner moths (Tischeriidae): new Neotropical Coptotriche and Astrotischeria species, with notes on Sapindaceae as a host-plant family

“…Here, we disagree with the methods and approach by Sharkey et al (2021), and adhere to the traditional standards for species descriptions. Following Ahrens et al (2021), we advocate for "an integrated framework where new evidence is compatible with existing knowledge, and where competing hypotheses can be tested against each other in a framework of established, widely accepted and clearly specified scientific rules" (Ahrens et al 2021).…”