Macrosystematics of Lepidoptera

I would like to point out that the results of today's molecular studies, which formed the basis of the list of Newkerken and Co., as a rule (in the discussion) also consider all the previous morphological baggage, emphasizing which morphological patterns observed earlier are confirmed by genetic analysis.

An example is the relationship between Herminiinae and Arctiinae, which has long been assumed by morphologists, but only thanks to molecular mechanics it has been formed nomenclatural.

You (and you are not the only one) try to present the current taxonomists-molecular scientists as the heroes of the joke "bring back the dog" - but this is not so.

I'm not trying to introduce anyone as anyone. I don't need it. The fact that molecular science confirms the conclusions made earlier by morphologists (designed, by the way, nomenclatural to molecular scientists - the principle of priority has not yet been canceled) is excellent. Molecular scientists simply "hack" the Gordian corner in the holy confidence that their method is the height of scientific thought, infallible and beyond judgment. That's not so. and they also make very, very revealing blunders. And the systems build different ones based on the same thing (sequences). There is a normal process of cognition. In 10 years, we will see what this will lead to.

That's what I mean. Let the shoemakers make boots and the bakers bake bread.

.. and doctors treat people; and data recovery specialists resuscitate people; and economists forecast their forecasts...

That is, phylogeny is not important?
Seriously, I understand the essence of what is happening as follows: previously, morphological / anaomic similarity was sufficient reason to assume kinship(not formal, because they are similar, but phylogenetic). And the molecular method has made adjustments to these rules.

It's good to live in a library.. there are probably plenty of scales in the books, I would shake them out and catch them, shake them out and catch them!!! What else is there to do???
)))))))))))))))

to read.
The molecular method did not introduce anything fundamentally new into taxonomy, except for a new feature - the structure of cNA. The principles and methods used are the same. People have returned to computer cladism, since CNCs are very convenient for calculating (only 4 elements in the matrix, very easy to encode). That's all the innovations . At the same time, the very principles of cladism on which the system is built (in other words, phylogenetics, or phylogenetic systematics) have not changed much since Hennig's time and still have the same weaknesses.

... and doctors treat people; and data recovery specialists resuscitate people; and economists forecast their forecasts...

very thick, Vlad. sho, did I raise your fucking data?

very thick, Vlad. sho, did I raise your fucking data?

Are you kidding me? Very good - and here you are cool!!! =)

..PS
barko, and what, the toad crushes?
PSSP
I would be in the place of a "friend", if I knew that I had found a "new species for science" (heh), I would take it and say nothing to anyone - let the literate neighbors find it themselves - this is their vocation )))...

In this case, no pressure. I can be "upset" if I am beaten on my field in equal conditions. For example, if I could have highlighted something new myself, but I missed it, didn't notice it, was too lazy, and a colleague showed great observation, diligence, etc., then yes, but so on ... from my point of view, this is a curiosity, a semi-anecdote. By the way, I will do my best to help a friend.

Are you kidding me? Very good - and here you are cool!!! =)

Meanwhile, it's a hobby that allows me to earn money for my science classes.

The person who will make the description.

You're talking about the formal side, but I was asking about something else, something high.

You're talking about the formal side, but I was asking about something else, something high.

in MKZN all high is overthrown =)

You're talking about the formal side, but I was asking about something else, something high.

And I think that there is nothing "high" in the description of the new taxon, this is a formality.

The more it hurts my eyes when journalists write " * * * A NEW SPECIES OF BUTTERFLIES has BEEN DISCOVERED!!!*** "-- which nah is open?!! Is this a law of physics?!