P. joanae/lumping and splitting

[James J Kruse]

I hope Mark Walker won't take this as a flame attack on him personnally. I
try to attack and defend ideas, not people.
 
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Mark Walker wrote:
> Ron wrote about Papilio taxonomy, and alluded to less-than-scientific
> reasons for lumping.
> I've often wondered about this myself.  I figure there might be several
 
Interesting, how in some circles, splitting is seen as a more honorable
and useful taxonomic activity than lumping. I've been taught the ideal
that taxonomy would be changed based on the results of scientific
investigations. Which means, that if no significant evidence that
supports the current status is found, synonymy should be the result. If
scientific evidence can be found that supports elevation to a new
taxonomic status, then it should be done. If the evidence is inconclusive
or countered by evidence that leaves reasonable doubt then the status
should be left unaltered. Taxonomy ideally should not have anything to do
with politics, in my opinion, although to some it has everything to do with
politics.
 
To compound these lumping/splitting adversions, whichever way they go,
there is tendency to be unable to separate evidence from personal opinion
and to get emotionally involved about the change in taxonomic status.
Typically, the a change in taxonomic status indicates that we now have a
better understanding of the relationships within a given group. However,
some folks are offended when others do not agree with their taxonomic
construct and then try to argue that there must be some underlying agenda
behind the taxonomic decision, which I find rather odd. I think that there
are very few systematists that have an anti-collecting agenda, for example.
 
> 3.  Perhaps there are those who don't like the idea of some amateur having
> the distinction of discovering or describing a new species.  This would boil
> down to jealousy, more than anything.
 
I think this is extremely rare. That being said, there is a procedure
established for getting names recognized that should be followed by
professionals and amateurs alike (called the ICZN -International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature-, and hence peer review for acceptance in
journals). So, I think it is understandable when there is some irritation
among professionals and conscientious amateurs when there are alleged
scientifically-based taxonomic changes announced in non-peer reviewed,
prolific self published pseudoscience, but certainly little or no jealousy.
 
>   Does lumping reduce the likelihood of increased trampling?
> It very well could, considering the fact that publication of a unique
 
Seems to me that rampant and unwarranted perpetuation of pre-Linnean
trinomenclature would bring in more collectors wanting to have complete
collections. I don't know or care, as I have not based my science on what
a typical collector, or a monster bent on the destruction of Oz, would
think one way or the other.
 
> At the end of the day, I still see the propensity for lumping to be
> anti-productive.
 
Amazing. And the profusion of ill-defined splitting of probable clinal
intermediates in obscure non-refereed "journals" or self-published fliers
is somehow more productive? My jaw hurts from bouncing off the floor.
 
> I may be being heretically unscientific, but I if the reasons for lumping
> are truly based solely on science, then I suggest that additional literature
> be published that provides description and distribution of creatures based
> on variation - regardless of currently accepted taxonomic classification.
 
This would be good, and then the same should be for splitting. When I
split a new species of tortricid moth (Archips goyerana - the
Baldcypress Leafroller - Kruse, 2000) from a well established species I
relied on a 15 year databank of published ecological literature as well as
my own new data. Are some as careful? Yes. Are most as careful? Big _NO_.
The truth is, most of the splitting to the sub-specific level (in
particular) is done without knowledge of the distribution, ecology, or
natural variation of the organism. Often times gaps between so-called
subspecies' ranges remain inadequately sampled, or worse, known clines
are intentially ignored.
 
James J. Kruse, Ph.D.
Curator of Entomology
University of Alaska Museum
907 Yukon Drive
Fairbanks, AK  99775
http://www.uaf.edu/museum/
 
 
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
 
   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
 
   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl