Timeless standards for species delimitation

Species Diagnosis and DNA Taxonomy

The use of DNA has helped to improve and speed up species identification and delimitation. However, it also provides new challenges to taxonomists. Incongruence of outcome from various markers and delimitation methods, bias from sampling and skewed species distribution, implemented models, and the choice of methods/priors may mislead results and also may, in conclusion, increase elements of subjectivity in species taxonomy. The lack of direct diagnostic outcome from most contemporary molecular delimitation approaches and the need for a reference to existing and best sampled trait reference systems reveal the need for refining the criteria of species diagnosis and diagnosability in the current framework of nomenclature codes and good practices to avoid nomenclatorial instability, parallel taxonomies, and consequently more and new taxonomic impediment.

Every Single Specimen Counts: A New Docosia Winnertz (Diptera: Mycetophilidae) Species Described from a Singleton

Simple Summary

A new fungus gnat species has been described from a single specimen collected from Georgia (Sakartvelo). The new species, named after its occurrence in Caucasia as Docosia caucasica sp. n., is distinguished from congeners by the characters in male terminalia and a unique COI sequence. As a substantial proportion of species in ecological communities tend to be rare, about 20–30% of new insect taxa have been described from a singleton so far. Therefore, following high-quality standards when describing new species, particularly when dealing with minimalistic material, is crucial. As much as possible, using multiple sets of characters, like morphology and DNA sequencing, is encouraged.

Abstract

A new species—Docosia caucasica sp. n.—has been described from material collected from the Lesser Caucasus Mountains in Georgia (Sakartvelo). The new species belongs to a group of Palaearctic species characterized by distinct posterolateral processes of gonocoxites and apically modified setae at the posteroventral margin of the gonocoxites medially. Within the group, D. caucasica sp. n. is most similar to D. landrocki Laštovka and Ševčík, 2006 in having a similar outline of the medial process of posteroventral margin of the gonocoxites and the gonostylus. There is also a marked difference within the partial cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 gene (COI) sequence of D. caucasica sp. n. and other Docosia spp. available in public databases. As the new species is described from a single male specimen only, the adequacy and code compliance of that are discussed.

Repositories for Taxonomic Data: Where We Are and What is Missing

Natural history collections are leading successful large-scale projects of specimen digitization (images, metadata, DNA barcodes), thereby transforming taxonomy into a big data science. Yet, little effort has been directed towards safeguarding and subsequently mobilizing the considerable amount of original data generated during the process of naming 15,000-20,000 species every year. From the perspective of alpha-taxonomists, we provide a review of the properties and diversity of taxonomic data, assess their volume and use, and establish criteria for optimizing data repositories. We surveyed 4113 alpha-taxonomic studies in representative journals for 2002, 2010, and 2018, and found an increasing yet comparatively limited use of molecular data in species diagnosis and description. In 2018, of the 2661 papers published in specialized taxonomic journals, molecular data were widely used in mycology (94%), regularly in vertebrates (53%), but rarely in botany (15%) and entomology (10%). Images play an important role in taxonomic research on all taxa, with photographs used in >80% and drawings in 58% of the surveyed papers. The use of omics (high-throughput) approaches or 3D documentation is still rare. Improved archiving strategies for metabarcoding consensus reads, genome and transcriptome assemblies, and chemical and metabolomic data could help to mobilize the wealth of high-throughput data for alpha-taxonomy. Because long-term-ideally perpetual-data storage is of particular importance for taxonomy, energy footprint reduction via less storage-demanding formats is a priority if their information content suffices for the purpose of taxonomic studies. Whereas taxonomic assignments are quasifacts for most biological disciplines, they remain hypotheses pertaining to evolutionary relatedness of individuals for alpha-taxonomy. For this reason, an improved reuse of taxonomic data, including machine-learning-based species identification and delimitation pipelines, requires a cyberspecimen approach-linking data via unique specimen identifiers, and thereby making them findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable for taxonomic research. This poses both qualitative challenges to adapt the existing infrastructure of data centers to a specimen-centered concept and quantitative challenges to host and connect an estimated $ \le $2 million images produced per year by alpha-taxonomic studies, plus many millions of images from digitization campaigns. Of the 30,000-40,000 taxonomists globally, many are thought to be nonprofessionals, and capturing the data for online storage and reuse therefore requires low-complexity submission workflows and cost-free repository use. Expert taxonomists are the main stakeholders able to identify and formalize the needs of the discipline; their expertise is needed to implement the envisioned virtual collections of cyberspecimens. [Big data; cyberspecimen; new species; omics; repositories; specimen identifier; taxonomy; taxonomic data.].

A commentary on the practice of using the so-called typeless species

The fears expressed by Santos et al. (2016) that description of typeless species (new species described based on field photographs) can be fatal for the practice of taxonomy which will succumb to an uncontrollable stream of "species of questionable delimitation" are, in our opinion, exaggerated. The Code already protects taxonomic practice from subjectivity quite well by limiting opportunities for descriptions of new species based on field photos by rigid requirements, and only skilled taxonomists with extensive knowledge of a group are capable of fulfilling them. If a taxonomist has omitted to compare the new typeless species with the known species externally similar to it, the latter cannot be diagnosed and its name in that case becomes nomen nudum. Typeless species can coincide with species described earlier, but can represent a new species differing in internal features. To describe typeless species without infringement of Article 13.1 a taxonomist should compare this species to all related and similar species described earlier.

Using ancient DNA to unravel taxonomic puzzles: the identity of Deuterodon pedri (Ostariophysi: Characidae)

ABSTRACT Accurate identification is essential for any study exploring biodiversity. Unfortunately, museum type specimens preserved for more than a hundred years are often not informative enough for precise identification of the species represented by the name-bearing type. The use of ancient DNA can help solve taxonomic problems when name-bearing types no longer have diagnostic morphological features that allow for an accurate identification of the species involved. That is the case for Deuterodon pedri, an endemic species from a small drainage in the rio Doce basin in Minas Gerais, Brazil, for which the type material is in poor condition. Specimens of D. pedri were collected in 1865 by the Thayer Expedition to Brazil and fixed in spirits, enabling them to yield viable DNA. As the morphology alone of the type material does not allow for an accurate identification, we used both morphological and ancient DNA (aDNA) methods to decisively establish the identity of D. pedri. This identification allowed us to recognize the species among recently collected specimens and then, based on them, redescribe the species. A genetype for the lectotype of D. pedri is presented.