Dear Sergio & those interested,
Just to give some tiny amount of feedback as there has been no response sent to the list.
Sergio Salazar wrote:
> At least from 1974, we know there are several species under the name
> Capitella capitata. Over 30 yr after that, we still have been unable to
> clarify the taxonomic composition of our most famous pollution indicator.
> Despite its current importance in benthic ecology, and its potential relevance
> in invasive species biology, we continue to see publications dealing with sps,
> Roman numerals, alphabetic lettering, or city names after the genus name, often
> without any details on morphology.
I have not followed the state of C.capitata research recently, but from the
above it seems nothing much has changed since we had a thread on the topic
back in 1999 wherein I made the comment that the situation was anarchic. What
we do in taxonomy depends on people following the made-up and agreed
conventions, however silly they sometimes seem or indeed are. If researchers
make up their own system ad hoc, and don't have vouchers and molecular
sequences, then their data can't be compared to others, and hasn't a frame of
reference outside their lab.
> solve the taxonomic confusion by designating and depositing a neotype for
> C. capitata, revising and reinstating the available names, and introducing
> new ones whenever needed.
I would hope that the above would come to pass a long, long way further on,
subsequent to combined molecular and morphological work.
Here's another chunk of my 1999 opinion:- "It's a whole subculture that have
'described' new species in their reports, but with data mostly lacking the
detail necessary for that purpose. From what is published I don't get a sense
an adequate knowledge is expressed about the background to the taxonomy of C.
capitata, or of its known morphology, or how to use binominals. This is simply
not what they're interested in."
As I said I haven't bothered with the topic recently. Perhaps the above is no
longer true, and I think the 'following the conventions' aspect, while helpful
to ensure the enduring value of a piece of research, isn't the key issue now.
What is really interesting now is investigating what species are there in
nature and how they are related. It is really preferable to do this first
before continuing to output research on ecology, biochemistry, gene
expression, pollution tolerance, etc, of inadequately defined entities. I
hope Sergio's message raises interest in those with the expertise to clarify
the alphabetical Capitella muddle.
Geoff
--
Geoff Read <g.read at niwa.co.nz>
http://www.annelida.net/