Descriptions of new species without morphology

oooh, hello, senility

  .... "molecular taxonomists"...

Crypsis quasicryptes, sp. nov.
gene A: ACCGTTAAGTCTACGTAWCGATGGCGCTA.
This species is distinguished by this gene from all others in this species complex by the two synapomorphies.

Molecular taxonomists can thus systematize molecules, but not species of organisms.

As if it was difficult to compare the habitus/attributes!
I'm so sad that the article was written to set a precedent...

As if it was difficult to compare the habitus/attributes!
I'm so sad that the article was written to set a precedent...

In fact, the precedent was already set two years ago by Lukhtanov

File/s:



 Lukhtanov_and_Shapoval_Agrodiaetus__Doklady.pdf

size: 184.59 k
number of downloads: 376

In fact, the precedent was already set two years ago by Lukhtanov

Yes, I'm not against the selection of cryptovids based on molecular mechanics-soon they won't describe it at all without it-I'm talking about the fundamental disregard for external signs.
You could at least write "no external differences found".

Here is an article that may partly contribute to such views on morpho-genital characteristics. In particular the article section:
(g) DNA barcoding versus morphology

File/s:



 Dinca_etal_2010_Barcoding_butterflies_in_Romania.pdf

size: 871.89 k
number of downloads: 536

And sometimes morphology is completely powerless to give the correct result when identifying individual specimens.

File/s:



 Hybrid_Lysandra.pdf

size: 218.67 k
number of downloads: 1954

  Molecular taxonomists can thus systematize molecules, but not species of organisms.

From this statement, we can conclude that organisms are not made up of molecules?
Then comparative anatomy is also suitable only for systematization of organs, but not of organisms.

No. It is absurd to systematize organisms only on the basis of DNA sequences. How do you order them to be distinguished in nature? What is the sequence TGAGCCAA or TGACGCAA?

From this statement, we can conclude that organisms are not made up of molecules?
Then comparative anatomy is also suitable only for systematization of organs, but not of organisms.

Comparative anatomy (comparative morphology) is a biological discipline that studies general patterns of the structure and development of organs and organ systems by comparing them in animals of different taxa at different stages of embryogenesis.
(Wikipedia)

it has absolutely nothing to do with taxonomy.

But can it happen that morphology, to some extent, refutes genetics? If it turns out that almost every nth specimen is a new species based on such studies?

Comparative anatomy (comparative morphology) is a biological discipline that studies general patterns of the structure and development of organs and organ systems by comparing them in animals of different taxa at different stages of embryogenesis.
(Wikipedia)

it has absolutely nothing to do with taxonomy.

Not only GENERAL patterns of structure, but also DIFFERENCES in structure.
And not only at the stages of embryogenesis.
Stanislav, you somehow "lost" part of the phrase: "comparisons in animals of different taxa".
Therefore, it has a direct relation to the systematization of organisms.
When a taxon is described, isn't there a differential diagnosis attached - isn't it comparative morphology (comparative anatomy)?

This post was edited by bora - 03.09.2010 16: 05

But can it happen that morphology, to some extent, refutes genetics? If it turns out that almost every nth specimen is a new species based on such studies?

So far, this is not clear. I have a series of one type of 30 copies each. and they have a very uniform structure of genes within the species. Moreover, it is identical to the data of other researchers for the same species. So N-th instances fall inside the selection and do not become separate "views".
And, by the way, read the article from post # 7.

This post was edited by bora - 03.09.2010 16: 00

Not only GENERAL patterns of structure, but also DIFFERENCES in structure.
And not only at the stages of embryogenesis.
Stanislav, you somehow "lost" part of the phrase: "comparisons in animals of different taxa".
Therefore, it has a direct relation to the systematization of organisms.
When a taxon is described, isn't there a differential diagnosis attached - isn't it comparative morphology (comparative anatomy)?

This is the definition that universities teach. From a university course. It is quite logical that the comparison is made for different taxa. If you compare one of them , it will no longer be a comparative anatomy (morphology), but an accumulation of statistics.

But can it happen that morphology, to some extent, refutes genetics? If it turns out that almost every nth specimen is a new species based on such studies?

And not only can, but already happens. A recent example is that the Europeans have well dissected the molecular structure of a number of European species of Syrphidae of the genus Merodon, finding, of course, like twin species with different molecular structure. And everything would be fine, but in the Southern European M. loewi and M. papillus from the island of Lesbos-it (molecular) is the same. Hiatus in the external morphology and structure of the male genitals is excellent.

Ståhls G., Vujic A., Pérez-Bañon C., Radenkovic S., Rojo S. and Petanidou T. COI barcodes for identification of Merodon hoverflies (Diptera, Syrphidae) of Lesvos Island, Greece // Molecular Ecology Resources. — 2009. — Vol., iss. 6. — P. 1431–1438.
DNA barcoding has become a useful system for linking different biological life stages, and for identification of species within a known taxonomic framework. In this study, we generated mitochondrial DNA COI barcodes using adult specimens of all 22 species of the hoverfly genus Merodon (Diptera, Syrphidae) occurring on Lesvos island (Greece). The generated COI barcodes could well discriminate between all Merodon taxa of Lesvos, except for M. loewi and M. papillus that shared the same haplotype, despite their clear morphological differences. In addition, the barcodes revealed two cases of hitherto unknown morphologically cryptic species close to M. avidus and M. nigritarsis, respectively. Because only few successful rearings of immature stages of Merodon hoverflies are available, the larval host plant remains unknown for these phytophagous taxa. The obtained COI barcode library for the Merodon spp. of Lesvos will constitute a tool to link any unknown immature stages with already known species, and thus provide important life-history information and promise for ecological studies.

This is the definition that universities teach. From a university course. It is quite logical that the comparison is made for different taxa. If you compare one of them , it will no longer be a comparative anatomy (morphology), but an accumulation of statistics.

This definition is not from a university course, but from Wikipedia, which is far from the same thing.
Here's a different definition (from Academics).
"Comparative anatomy
— anatomia comparativa) is not really a special science, but a method. Its content is the same as that of zoology, but in p. anatomy the actual material is presented in a different order. p. anatomy, choosing one or another organ, monitors its modifications in all those animals in which it occurs. In other words, in Social anatomy, the morphological material that is reported in zoology in relation to systematic groups (see) is presented by organs. "

Yes, this is the main problem of molecular taxonomy - the presence of species that may not differ in standard DNA fragments. We even tried to calculate the number of such types - it turns out about 5-7%.

But that's not what upset me in the attached article. The practice of describing doppelganger species only by habit will soon become commonplace - this will not be avoided. But who will determine that these species are exactly duplicates, i.e. they do not differ morphologically? A new generation of taxonomists is not always with the morphology of " you " - they sometimes see the same genitals more difficult than to make a sequel.

This definition is not from a university course, but from Wikipedia, which is far from the same thing.
Here's a different definition (from Academics).
"Comparative anatomy
— anatomia comparativa) is not really a special science, but a method. Its content is the same as that of zoology, but in p. anatomy the actual material is presented in a different order. p. anatomy, choosing one or another organ, monitors its modifications in all those animals in which it occurs. In other words, in Social anatomy, the morphological material that is reported in zoology in relation to systematic groups (see) is presented by organs."

Duc, what am I talking about? What does taxonomy have to do with it? We are talking about evolution . It is a profound mistake to identify comparative morphology with taxonomy in any way.

bora
Comparative anatomy is a part of comparative morphology. This is a completely established science, which Cuvier laid the foundation for. There is no single "comparative anatomical method", because comparative morphology has many methods and they are very different. The task of comparative morphology is not only a simple comparison, but also the study of the formation of structure in onto - and phylogeny. In other words, we define not only the morphological series, but also try to establish its evolutionary polarity.

Yes, this is the main problem of molecular taxonomy - the presence of species that may not differ in standard DNA fragments. We even tried to calculate the number of such types - it turns out about 5-7%.

But that's not what upset me in the attached article. The practice of describing doppelganger species only by habit will soon become commonplace - this will not be avoided. But who will determine that these species are exactly duplicates, i.e. they do not differ morphologically? A new generation of taxonomists is not always with the morphology of " you " - they sometimes see the same genitals more difficult than to make a sequel.

There is no such thing as molecular taxonomy. In order for the calculations of DNA researchers in taxonomy to take shape, it is necessary to accumulate data on DNA sequences, I believe, at least half of the species diversity that is described by traditional methods. And not just one COI gene, but at least half of the genome (or better, the entire genome). So far, this task is not very difficult. And to build a system on one enzyme is the same, excuse me, populism. how to use for it, say, only the discal spot in butterflies.

And not only can, but already happens. A recent example is that the Europeans have well dissected the molecular structure of a number of European species of Syrphidae of the genus Merodon, finding, of course, like twin species with different molecular structure. And everything would be fine, but in the Southern European M. loewi and M. papillus from the island of Lesbos-it (molecular) is the same. Hiatus in the external morphology and structure of the male genitals is excellent.

Ståhls G., Vujic A., Pérez-Bañon C., Radenkovic S., Rojo S. and Petanidou T. COI barcodes for identification of Merodon hoverflies (Diptera, Syrphidae) of Lesvos Island, Greece // Molecular Ecology Resources. — 2009. — Vol., iss. 6. — P. 1431–1438.

The trouble and error here is that only DNA COI barcodes were used. It is incorrect to use only mitochondria. It is absolutely necessary to study nuclear genes in parallel (as, for example, in Lukhtanov). Intragression can occur with a mitochondrial (fixation of a gene of another species in a population of one species, which occurred as a result of the hybridization of two species that once took place, apparently when the population of a species that picked up a foreign gene was in a "bottleneck"state). Simultaneous replacement of both mitochondrial and nuclear genes is impossible.
I.e., in the given case, there is not a method error, but a methodological flaw and a certain special case that should simply be studied further.

The question is different - what's the joke? Just describe it?

By the way, vporos and such - and people of different races, has anyone compared? How big are the differences?

The trouble and error here is that only DNA COI barcodes were used. It is incorrect to use only mitochondria. It is absolutely necessary to study nuclear genes in parallel (as, for example, in Lukhtanov). Intragression can occur with a mitochondrial (fixation of a gene of another species in a population of one species, which occurred as a result of the hybridization of two species that once took place, apparently when the population of a species that picked up a foreign gene was in a "bottleneck"state). Simultaneous replacement of both mitochondrial and nuclear genes
is impossible. That is, in the given case, there is not a method error, but a methodological flaw and a certain special case that should simply be studied further.

If so, that's fine. Thanks for the clarification, bora!

The question is different - what's the joke? Just describe it?

By the way, vporos and such - and people of different races, has anyone compared? How big are the differences?

In the mitochondrial region - 5 races. And 4 - African negroids, and the fifth - all the others + East African Negroids.

interesting. does it make sense? that my wife and I are Negroes?

No, this is just a special case that you just need to study further

And not just one COI gene, but at least half of the genome (or better, the entire genome).

Several uncoupled genes will suffice. Even just a single mitochondrial enzyme (CO1) gives a 97.8% (article above) probability of correct detection. And the fact that the error occurred only in crossing species (for example, C. crocea and C. erate, which were already discussed once).
If you attract an additional 1-2 nuclear genes (and preferably protein-non-coding ones), then the probability of error will tend to zero.
But if you look at the entire genome, then only identical twins will be "one species" (i.e., with an almost identical genome).

interesting. does it make sense? that my wife and I are Negroes?

I think that all of us here at the forum came from the East African Negroids (unless, of course, the bushman got mixed up).

  bora
Comparative anatomy is a part of comparative morphology. This is a completely established science, which Cuvier laid the foundation for. The task of comparative morphology is not only a simple comparison, but also the study of the formation of structure in onto - and phylogeny. In other words, we define not only the morphological series, but also try to establish its evolutionary polarity.

Excuse me for being limited, but I don't recall Cuvier doing ontogeny, much less phylogeny.

This post was edited by bora - 03.09.2010 17: 49

And not only can, but already happens. A recent example is that the Europeans have well dissected the molecular structure of a number of European species of Syrphidae of the genus Merodon, finding, of course, like twin species with different molecular structure. And everything would be fine, but in the Southern European M. loewi and M. papillus from the island of Lesbos-it (molecular) is the same. Hiatus in the external morphology and structure of the male genitals is excellent.

Here the problem is in this particular case, and not in principle at all.

Sequences are poorly selected, and EXTRA-specific, generic, and so on variations in one, TWO, and so on sequences (NOT NECESSARILY GENES) are not collected.

Everything is exactly the same as external morphology, only at the sequence level. Very logical indeed.

  what's the joke?

The point is that it's not a joke, but a modern scientific method.

Learn "matchmaking", that is, biology, which is getting worse and worse solved

amateur approaches.

This is, for example, how?

This is done, for example, by studying lighter or darker bandages on the underside of the hind wings of males, and describing "new species"on this basis.

This post was edited by bora - 03.09.2010 18: 18

Even 20 years ago, such an idea would have seemed delusional.

And 20 years ago, there was nothing delusional about it. What happened was this

1. insufficient equipment, methods, and time for OBTAINING and STUDYING information

data. Now it's a different matter, but tomorrow it will be cheaper than " cleaning the bristles

on the upper side of the shin." NOT SO ROMANTIC of course, but no worse.

2. There were people who did not want to go too far into the "wilds of genomic data".

processes". And why, under a magnifying glass (binocular, microscopoi, el. microscope

SOMETHING is visible). Then. about 30 years ago, this could have been understood, BUT NOT TODAY.

TODAY, you must either master or remain a romantic collector.

And 20 years ago, there was nothing delusional about it. What happened was this

1. insufficient equipment, methods and time for OBTAINING and STUDYING
data. Now this is a different matter, but tomorrow it will be cheaper than "protecting the bristles
on the upper side of the shin". NOT SO ROMANTIC of course, but no worse.
2. There were people who did not want to go too far into the "jungle of genomic
processes". And why, under a magnifying glass (binoculars, microscopes, electric microscopes
can see SOMETHING). Then. about 30 years ago, this could have been understood, BUT NOT TODAY.
TODAY, you must either master or remain a romantic collector.

Lovely!!!

This is, for example, how?

In my example, amateur methods are what I use to identify my beetles at home (I have binoculars)
and professional, and incomparably more expensive in terms of costs (paid by the laboratory in which I worked), I was engaged when I compared the genome sequences (entirely and by individual genes and by the sequence of proteins that were read from these genes) of viruses of the same close group, we called them the genus and species, but this is conditional, since such The BIOLOGICAL concepts of viruses are not as well developed as those of NON-viruses.

And the passion as he liked from the obtained sequences to build phylogenetic trees, and to argue who is descended from whom.

So, in viruses, it is easier to determine the appearance (I call this concept conditionally here, of course) by the sequence of nucleic acid than by its APPEARANCE visible in an electron microscope. And so it was a long time ago.

This post was edited by amara - 03.09.2010 18: 37

And 20 years ago, there was nothing delusional about it. And it was like this
: 1. insufficient equipment, methods, and time for OBTAINING and STUDYING
data. Now this is a different matter, but tomorrow it will be cheaper than "protecting the bristles
on the upper side of the shin". NOT SO ROMANTIC of course, but no worse.
2. There were people who did not want to go too far into the "jungle of genomic
processes". And why, under a magnifying glass (binoculars, microscopes, electric microscopes
can see SOMETHING). Then. about 30 years ago, this could have been understood, BUT NOT TODAY.
TODAY, you must either master or remain a romantic collector.

I give you a standing ovation!

In my example, amateur methods are what I use to identify my beetles at home (I have binoculars)
and professional, and incomparably more expensive in terms of costs (paid by the laboratory in which I worked), I was engaged when I compared the genome sequences (entirely and by individual genes and by the sequence of proteins that were read from these genes) of viruses of the same close group, we called them the genus and species, but this is conditional, since such The BIOLOGICAL concepts of viruses are not as well developed as those of NON-viruses.

And the passion as he liked from the obtained sequences to build phylogenetic trees, and to argue who is descended from whom.

So, in viruses, it is easier to determine the appearance (I call this concept conditionally here, of course) by the sequence of nucleic acid than by its APPEARANCE visible in an electron microscope. And so it was a long time ago.

Awesome, we compared a stupid virus, which has nothing else to look at except a protein capsid (at best), and a complex living being.

And 20 years ago, there was nothing delusional about it. What happened was this

1. insufficient equipment, methods, and time for OBTAINING and STUDYING information

data. Now it's a different matter, but tomorrow it will be cheaper than " cleaning the bristles

on the upper side of the shin." NOT SO ROMANTIC of course, but no worse.

2. There were people who did not want to go too far into the "wilds of genomic data".

processes". And why, under a magnifying glass (binocular, microscopoi, el. microscope

SOMETHING is visible). Then. about 30 years ago, this could have been understood, BUT NOT TODAY.

TODAY, you must either master or remain a romantic collector.

And in another 10 years, they will invent a device into which you can throw a piece of cloth and it will give out the name of the organism, and all taxonomists will be out of work at once.

Of course, we should not go to the other extreme.

There are groups whose bilogical types can be distinguished by any novice from a distance of a meter, and here you don't need to spend money on DNA isolation.
Although even in this case, a meticulous specialist may come and find that the "good" view actually consists of ten, or even several dozen. individual species (as an example from botany, dandelion or cuff).

Awesome, we compared a stupid virus, which has nothing else to look at except a protein capsid (at best), and a complex living being.

No, I gave it as a simplified case, but stipulated that viruses have their own problems with taxonomy, different from NON-VIRUSES.