Problems of taxonomy and phylogeny

I was there. The evil Germans got all worked up . After the book of Hesselbart and his comrades, there is nothing much to do in Turkey during the day. Is that pigeons on the DNA and chromosomes to divide (ugh, ugh, ugh)

Change the group Are there any other poorly studied families in Lepidoptera?

Gurus work for science, not for boys, girls, or hermaphrodites

I was there. The evil Germans got all worked up . After the book of Hesselbart and his comrades, there is nothing much to do in Turkey during the day. Is that pigeons on the DNA and chromosomes to divide (ugh, ugh, ugh)

For the most part, it is the Dutch - for example, Oorschot. He lives in Amsterdam. Such a very strange muzhik

And therefore, if the Guru's article does not list other features besides chromosomal or DNA ones, then I'm sorry, this work cannot be used in any way because of the extreme difficulty of rechecking it.

In fact, all the processed material is stored in the museums of the relevant scientific institutions, since mainly the abdomen is taken (the genitals are preferably pre-extracted). So, if you want, you can also get acquainted with the source material. You also visit collections to study holotypes. And many authors also provide photos of materials, both in articles and on individual sites. For example:
http://www.morphbank.net/Browse/ByTaxon/?t...nyms=0&images=0

Gurus work for science, not for boys, girls, or hermaphrodites

By the way here is a popular presentation of the future of biological systematics
What awaits us all...
http://elementy.ru/genbio/synopsis?artid=246

And it can't be reversed

Only the studied type guarantees that the work was carried out exactly with what is mentioned in the article.

In this case, any definition of material does not make sense at all, and only the holotype specimen

Guest, can you introduce yourself? It's not very pleasant to talk to ghosts.

I was thrown out of the nest.

No doubt I was exaggerating.
But I think you can tell the difference between Eumedon and Eros? To do this, you don't need to refer to the standard material.
Preferably, material is taken from the type locality with characteristic morphogenetic features of the corresponding taxon. In addition, for the validity of studies, more than one copy is taken, and then not only from the type locality.
And if you want to explore the primary material, please contact the appropriate museums.
They won't give me the holotype, even if I want to get the genitals out of it for research. So the genital analysis is not performed on a 200-year-old holotype.

We are talking about certain content. Defined by the group expert. The list of experts must be approved! Then you can no longer use the type, because the concept of expert means that the data specialist has seen the types for the group and knows it in an encyclopedic volume. Otherwise, I don't see any prospects for the development of these areas of taxonomy.
When three boys from Germany came to us in the Altai - they pulled the plants, then they did DNA research, and when our guys in Halle checked the definitions-there were dozens of errors at the generic level! This shouldn't happen.
Only experts!
In general, these methods are the future. Whether we want to or not. To reject the progress of biological science is Lysenkoism.

And if you want to explore the primary material, please contact the appropriate museums.
They won't give me the holotype, even if I want to get the genitals out of it for research. So the genital analysis is not performed on a 200-year-old holotype.

Why would that be? Why claim if you don't know? Holotypes can be examined , but not everyone is allowed in. Zolotukhin has cooked more than 400 holotypes in the last three years alone, and I've made about 200. Some are 150 years old.

At first, there will undoubtedly be some errors with the definition, but as the material accumulates, individual errors will be leveled.
Experts are good, but who will approve them? And if they do, it is not difficult for them to evaluate the definition of museum specimens, as in the example given.

Holotypes can be examined , but not everyone is allowed in.

So they didn't trust me.

So they didn't trust me.

Apparently yes. And it depends not only on your person, but also on the museum, curator, and group.
I didn't see any problems anywhere. Except for the small Zadrypan museums in the Russian Federation, where there are no museums-I won't talk about them.

But what is written by respected colleagues from Canada or the United States, or colleagues from Fennoscandia, who have never seen Palearctic types in their lives - I have a lot, just a lot of complaints.

Time, I hope, will straighten out

At first, there will undoubtedly be some errors with the definition, but as the material accumulates, individual errors will be leveled.
Experts are good, but who will approve them? And if they do, it is not difficult for them to evaluate the definition of museum specimens, as in the example given.

There are more errors now. There is only one reason. For a new business often grab either young, or those who are easily given the loot. Usually, both categories are not masters in taxonomy. The flow of articles using new methods often comes from people who have never been heard of before as taxonomists.
It's nice that bora has opened. Your book is on the shelf, the articles are arranged in folders - they are very useful. If you were not allowed to view the types, then I'm sure it's the curator. I even guess where this could have happened.

This is for the author. I recommend

This post was edited by Yakovlev - 19.01.2010 19: 47

That's what I'm saying - time will tell. In the meantime, some works are perceived exclusively as "test".

By the way, the question arose - how much can portable equipment cost to use the DNA-barcode? For example, for home use, with a month's supply of chemicals.

Manufacturers are listed here, you can probably search through their websites
http://www.molbiol.ru/protocol/sequenceob02.pdf

Or ask the molecular scientists of our forum molbiol!

This post was edited by Proctos - 19.01.2010 20: 01

You will need a laboratory consisting of several rooms, with fume hoods, lack of contamination (air filtration), otherwise you can get dirty, sow mushrooms and determine their DNA. The equipment costs 250-300 thousand Yandex units + permanent consumables + (I'm sorry) the practical experience of a professional biochemist (this is not microbial DNA based on templates for the clinic to determine). This is all hard so far.

Beetles of the
genus Rivacindela and butterflies of the genus Dioryctria were first divided into clusters based on DNA analysis, and then morphological and behavioral differences were found between the resulting groups. In samples of small bottom freshwater organisms, DNA sequences were identified and based on it, protozoa, nematodes, crustaceans, etc. were identified. Scientists have called this method "reverse taxonomy". "

fine.
The most important thing is that the article looks like it will be published in Nature. So much for a cool Impact

This post was edited by Yakovlev - 19.01.2010 20: 28

How do you like this method?
".divided into clusters based on DNA analysis.."

Well, that's exactly what it was about.

I also consider the inclusion of morpho-genital, biological, zoogeographic and other studies necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the species as a whole.

There is an opinion in science that genetics for the body, in fact, is primary...

And the fact that the equipment is expensive is a problem for researchers, and not for nature, which forms species.
In general, the development of our civilization goes on complicating and increasing the cost of systems.
Better, of course, in Buddhism: sit in the lotus position, say the magic syllable OMMM, contemplate the aura around the navel and invisibly comprehend the secret meaning of things. But for taxonomy, this method does not seem to be applicable.

Well, I don't know In botany, they try to clarify all sorts of controversial and incomprehensible things with a hint. Aren't there any oddities in entomology anymore?

There are a lot of obscure things about entomology. There's just a caveat - there are a lot of people working during the day, and therefore they tear each other's throats so that they have priority.

This, alas, is accurate, and very harmful to dela

What we should have done as bryologists was to get together once and distribute the regions and taxa. But we don't have anyone like M. S. Ignatov. So ... (see Stanislav's post).

If you are interested, check out an example of the massive application of modern methods in entomology.
Janzen, D. H., W. Hallwachs, P. Blandin, J. M. Burns, J.-M. Cadiou, I. Chacon, T. Dapkey, A. R. Deans, M. E. Epstein, B. Espinoza, J. G. Franclemont, W. A. Haber, M. Hajibabaei, J.P.W. Hall, P.D.N. Hebert, I.D. Gauld, D.J. Harvey, A. Hausmann, I.J. Kitching, D. LaFontaine, J.F-Landry, C. Lemaire, J.Y. Miller, J. S. Miller, L. Miller, S.E. Miller, J. Montero, E. Munroe, S. R. Green, S. Ratnasingham, J. E. Rawlins, R. K. Robbins, J. J. Rodriguez, R. Rougerie, M. J. Sharkey, M. A. Smith, M. A. Solis, J. B. Sullivan, P. Thiaucourt, D.B. Wahl, S.J. Weller, J. B. Whitfield, K. R. Willmott, D. M. Wood, N. E. Woodley & J. J. Wilson. 2009. Integration of DNA barcoding into an ongoing inventory of tropical complex biodiversity. Molecular Ecology Resources 9 (supplement 1): 1-26
Summary:
Inventory of the caterpillars, their food plants and parasitoids began in 1978 for today’s
Area de Conservacion Guanacaste (ACG), in northwestern Costa Rica. This complex mosaic of
120 000 ha of conserved and regenerating dry, cloud and rain forest over 0–2000 m elevation
contains at least 10 000 species of non-leaf-mining caterpillars used by more than 5000 species
of parasitoids. Several hundred thousand specimens of ACG-reared adult Lepidoptera and
parasitoids have been intensively and extensively studied morphologically by many
taxonomists, including most of the co-authors. DNA barcoding — the use of a standardized
short mitochondrial DNA sequence to identify specimens and flush out undisclosed
species — was added to the taxonomic identification process in 2003. Barcoding has been found to be extremely accurate during the identification of about 100 000 specimens of
about 3500 morphologically defined species of adult moths, butterflies, tachinid flies, and
parasitoid wasps. Less than 1% of the species have such similar barcodes that a molecularly
based taxonomic identification is impossible. No specimen with a full barcode was
misidentified when its barcode was compared with the barcode library. Also as expected
from early trials, barcoding a series from all morphologically defined species, and correlating
the morphological, ecological and barcode traits, has revealed many hundreds of overlooked
presumptive species. Many but not all of these cryptic species can now be distinguished by
subtle morphological and/or ecological traits previously ascribed to ‘variation’ or thought
to be insignificant for species-level recognition. Adding DNA barcoding to the inventory
has substantially improved the quality and depth of the inventory, and greatly multiplied
the number of situations requiring further taxonomic work for resolution.

http://www.life.illinois.edu/whitfield/pubs/pdfs/MER2009.pdf
I was saddened by what one person can do now, with methods that are essentially 200 years old?

The new branch in biology, while there is still no standardization, is aimed only at one thing - at pumping out the maximum amount of funds in the form of grants in order to significantly improve the financial situation.

Well, that's not always the case. For example, I do tests at my own expense, but I haven't received any grants, and I don't intend to. You have to earn money in other places.

.. Based on DNA barcodes, half of Yakovlev's taxa were reduced to synonyms.

I think Roman will be only too happy about it. He wouldn't have to waste money and time.

This post was edited by Proctos - 19.01.2010 22: 09

I don't care. Went to sleep

It would be a good idea for the moderator to separate the discussion about DNA barcoding into a separate thread.

They won't give me the holotype, even if I want to get the genitals out of it for research. So the genital analysis is not performed on a 200-year-old holotype.

I apologize, but this phrase shows that you are not a taxonomist.

There is an opinion in science that genetics for the body, in fact, is primary...

There is also an opinion that a genotype is nothing more than a library or a set of instructions. In general, it is the phenotype that really interacts with the environment.

There is also an opinion that a genotype is nothing more than a library or a set of instructions. In general, it is the phenotype that really interacts with the environment.

The phenotype does not interact with the environment. The phenotype (in all its diversity) is the result of the interaction of the "instruction set" with the environment!

The phenotype does not interact with the environment. The phenotype (in all its diversity) is the result of the interaction of the "instruction set" with the environment!

Moreover ,the "set of instructions" for each organism is primary.

I was there. The evil Germans got all worked up . After the book of Hesselbart and his comrades, there is nothing much to do in Turkey during the day. Is that pigeons on the DNA and chromosomes to divide (ugh, ugh, ugh)

I'm into beetles, actually...

But if a stable form appears at the same point from year to year and is caused by microclimatic conditions-is it not a subspecies ??

No.

But if a stable form appears at the same point from year to year and is caused by microclimatic conditions-is it not a subspecies ??

no

If you look at it this way, then there are no subspecies at all))))))))) Only here if you collect a series of 30 identical butterflies, different from others in this form at a new point, then you will prove to everyone until you are hoarse that this is a subspecies, and not a form that appears year after year at the same point and is caused by microclimatic conditions.))))))))))))))))) The genitals of subspecies within the species are the same ))))))

If you look at it this way, then there are no subspecies at all))))))))) Only here if you collect a series of 30 identical butterflies, different from others in this form at a new point, then you will prove to everyone until you are hoarse that this is a subspecies, and not a form that appears year after year at the same point and is caused by microclimatic conditions.))))))))))))))))) The genitals of subspecies within the species are the same ))))))

I-I won't.
In general, these are all genetic units - and external signs, like genital ones, are not the best way to identify them.

This I, dear cat Matroskin, know as well as you do. The question is who can easily tell one thing from the other by eye when you encounter an unfamiliar population at a new point and the whole series is the same. Verbiage was spread and nothing more...