In reading a recent issue of Aroideana (not yet available to non-members of IAS), I find, as is so often the case with that publication, several articles by Tom Croat describing new species. What is conspicuously absent from these articles is phylogenetic trees or any discussion of genetic analysis.…

I assume you are talking about “big picture” phylogenetics as opposed to the very essential usage of genetics when it comes to taxonomy (species descriptions). As has been said “you cannot protect what you do not know” and you need to do the taxonomy before the species can be protected or even stud…

[image] jasonhernandez74: The unknown species are probably in localities that have not yet been properly explored, and will be brought to light by going to these places and finding them Why don’t we protect these places first and study them later? The blame is on capitalism and corrupt govern…

I don’t know if this makes it better or worse (from your perspective), but after sifting carefully through the acknowledgments and looking at the funding sources, it looks like this whole thing was basically a side project of some folks at UT Southwestern who are computational biologists and funded …

I imagine that the institutional and funding structures of academia play a role in facilitating certain types of research activity and discouraging others. There are very few researchers who have the luxury of having the time and freedom and resources to pursue any project they want. A lot of fundi…

[image] sopacexplorer: If a change makes every field book obsolete, or forces a significant effort in change on iNaturalist is immaterial if the best path is to do it right. Going along with every proposed split is not necessarily the best path. Interestingly enough, now that I have read fur…

[image] jasonhernandez74: Again, not based on fancy-dancy genetic analyses, but on careful observation of morphology. And this, it seems to me, given other comments you have made, to be your real complaint: not taxonomy vs. conservation (the two activities are not mutually exclusive), but tax…

I agree that morphology alone is not sufficient for many taxa. I would also note that we are getting to, if not already at, the point where it is easier (and probably quicker and cheaper) to run a DNA sample than to examine morphology of genitalia for many specimens. It also requires much less techn…

setting aside my taxonomy opinions, this whole thing seems to suggest strongly that for applied conservation, we should be focusing on ecosystem level conservation, rather than only species level. Whether a genetically isolated patch of butterflies on an Ozark mountain is technically a separate spec…

[image] cthawley: DNA is also increasingly become accessible to average citizens for a modest fee ($10ish and dropping). I do hope we get the trichorders soon, but until then 10 dollars isn’t actually cheap for monitoring. We visit maybe 30 plots a year each with on average 40 plant species …

[image] sopacexplorer: The Ozark Swallowtail is almost identical to the very common Black Swallowtail, and that’s why it was long overlooked. Imagine if the assumption was made that the Ozarks could be deforested because they were “just Black Swallowtails.” That would go against the current e…

Research priorities vis-a-vis conservation needs

Nature Talk

Topic		Replies	Views
Are monotypic genera more important to conservation? Nature Talk	17	833	October 17, 2022
The definition of taxonomic characteristics Nature Talk	22	2198	March 13, 2022
The future of DNA barcoding, and its use in citizen science Nature Talk	69	4794	April 13, 2026
Genetics to replace morphological examination? General	55	4622	March 31, 2021
We must train specialists in botany and zoology — or risk more devastating extinctions Nature Talk	2	168	November 25, 2024

Research priorities vis-a-vis conservation needs

Related topics