Larvae of the genus Eleodes (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae): matrix-based descriptions, cladistic analysis, and key to late instars.

Darkling beetle larvae (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae) are collectively referred to as false wireworms. Larvae from several species in the genus Eleodes are considered to be agricultural pests, though relatively little work has been done to associate larvae with adults of the same species and only a handful of species have been characterized in their larval state. Morphological characters from late instar larvae were examined and coded to produce a matrix in the server-based content management system mx. The resulting morphology matrix was used to produce larval species descriptions, reconstruct a phylogeny, and build a key to the species included in the matrix. Larvae are described for the first time for the following 12 species: Eleodes anthracinus Blaisdell, Eleodes carbonarius (Say), Eleodes caudiferus LeConte, Eleodes extricatus (Say), Eleodes goryi Solier, Eleodes hispilabris (Say), Eleodes nigropilosus LeConte, Eleodes pilosus Horn, Eleodes subnitens LeConte, Eleodes tenuipes Casey, Eleodes tribulus Thomas, and Eleodes wheeleri Aalbu, Smith & Triplehorn. The larval stage of Eleodes armatus LeConte is redescribed with additional characters to differentiate it from the newly described congeneric larvae.

What's in a (biological) name? The wrath of Lord Rutherford.

Names in taxonomy have seven different and important properties, some due to their existence in the context of classifications. Names confer or facilitate individuation, information storage and retrieval, and set theories of relationships, explanatory power, testable predictions, conceptual power, and language. No other way of naming in science is so powerful. And this is possible because taxonomic naming is done with full consideration of the theoretical specification of empirical data (characters) and their correspondence among taxa via homology statements. Since Darwin and Hennig, sets of homologous characters distributed among taxa allow precise hypotheses of a genealogical relationship, and this relationship is reflected in the way naming results in a classification.

Does counting species count as taxonomy? On misrepresenting systematics, yet again.

Recent commentary by Costello and collaborators on the current state of the global taxonomic enterprise attempts to demonstrate that taxonomy is not in decline as feared by taxonomists, but rather is increasing by virtue of the rate at which new species are formally named. Having supported their views with data that clearly indicate as much, Costello et al. make recommendations to increase the rate of new species descriptions even more. However, their views appear to rely on the perception of species as static and numerically if not historically equivalent entities whose value lie in their roles as "metrics". As such, their one-dimensional portrayal of the discipline, as concerned solely with the creation of new species names, fails to take into account both the conceptual and epistemological foundations of systematics. We refute the end-user view that taxonomy is on the rise simply because more new species are being described compared with earlier decades, and that, by implication, taxonomic practice is a formality whose pace can be streamlined without considerable resources, intellectual or otherwise. Rather, we defend the opposite viewpoint that professional taxonomy is in decline relative to the immediacy of the extinction crisis, and that this decline threatens not just the empirical science of phylogenetic systematics, but also the foundations of comparative biology on which other fields rely. The allocation of space in top-ranked journals to propagate views such as those of Costello et al. lends superficial credence to the unsupportive mindset of many of those in charge of the institutional fate of taxonomy. We emphasize that taxonomy and the description of new species are dependent upon, and only make sense in light of, empirically based classifications that reflect evolutionary history; homology assessments are at the centre of these endeavours, such that the biological sciences cannot afford to have professional taxonomists sacrifice the comparative and historical depth of their hypotheses in order to accelerate new species descriptions.

Impediments to taxonomy and users of taxonomy: accessibility and impact evaluation.

There has been much discussion of the "taxonomic impediment". This phrase confuses two kinds of impediment: an impediment to end users imposed by lack of reliable information; and impediments to taxonomy itself, which vary from insufficient funding to low citation rates of taxonomic monographs. In order to resolve both these types of impediment, taxonomy needs to be revitalized through funding and training taxonomists, as well as investing in taxonomic revisions and monographs rather than technological surrogates such as DNA barcoding. © The Willi Hennig Society 2011.

Taxonomy and why history of science matters for science: a case study.

The history of science often has difficulty connecting with science at the lab-bench level, raising questions about the value of history of science for science. This essay offers a case study from taxonomy in which lessons learned about particular failings of numerical taxonomy (phenetics) in the second half of the twentieth century bear on the new movement toward DNA barcoding. In particular, it argues that an unwillingness to deal with messy theoretical questions in both cases leads to important problems in the theory and practice of identifying taxa. This argument makes use of scientific and historical considerations in a way that the authors hope leads to convincing conclusions about the history of taxonomy as well as about its present practice.

Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phylogeny.

Revisionary taxonomy is frequently dismissed as merely descriptive, which belies its strong intellectual content and hypothesis-driven nature. Funding for taxonomy is inadequate and largely diverted to studies of phylogeny that neither improve classifications nor nomenclature. Phylogenetic classifications are optimal for storing and predicting information, but phylogeny divorced from taxonomy is ephemeral and erodes the accuracy and information content of the language of biology. Taxonomic revisions and monographs are efficient, high-throughput species hypothesis-testing devices that are ideal for the World Wide Web. Taxonomic knowledge remains essential to credible biological research and is made urgent by the biodiversity crisis. Theoretical and technological advances and threats of mass species extinctions indicate that this is the time for a renaissance in taxonomy. Clarity of vision and courage of purpose are needed from individual taxonomists and natural history museums to bring about this evolution of taxonomy into the information age.

The Phylogeny of the Extant Hexapod Orders.

Morphological and molecular data are marshalled to address the question of hexapod ordinal relationships. The combination of 275 morphological variables, 1000 bases of the small subunit nuclear rDNA (18S), and 350 bases of the large subunit nuclear rDNA (28S) are subjected to a variety of analysis parameters (indel and transversion costs). Representatives of each hexapod order are included with most orders represented multiply. Those parameters that minimize character incongruence (ILD of Mickevich and Farris, 1981, Syst. Zool. 30, 351-370), among the morphological and molecular data sets are chosen to generate the best supported cladogram. A well-resolved and robust cladogram of ordinal relationships is produced with the topology (Crustacea ((Chilopoda Diplopoda) ((Collembola Protura) ((Japygina Campodeina) (Archaeognatha (Zygentoma (Ephemerida (Odonata ((((Mantodea Blattaria) Isoptera) Zoraptera) ((Plecoptera Embiidina) (((Orthoptera Phasmida) (Grylloblattaria Dermaptera)) ((((Psocoptera Phthiraptera) Thysanoptera) Hemiptera) ((Neuropteroidea Coleoptera) (((((Strepsiptera Diptera) Mecoptera) Siphonaptera) (Trichoptera Lepidoptera)) Hymenoptera)))))))))))))).

Forum - Taxonomic Stability is Ignorance.

Absolute nomenclatural stability is undesirable in phylogenetic classifications because they reflect changing hypotheses of cladistic relationships. De Queiroz and Gauthier's (1990:Syst. Zool. 39, 307-322; 1992:A. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23, 449-480; 1994:Trends Ecol. Evol. 9, 27-31) alternative to Linnaean nomenclature is concluded to provide stable names for unstable concepts. In terms of communicating either characters shared by species of a named taxon or elements (species) included in a taxon, de Queiroz and Gauthier's system is less stable than the Linnaean system. Linnaean ranks communicate limited information about inclusivity of taxa, but abandonment of ranks results in the loss of such information. As cladistic hypotheses advance, taxa named under de Queiroz and Gauthier's system can change their level of generality radically, from being part of a group to including it, without any indicative change in its spelling. The Linnaean system has been retained by taxonomists because its hierarchic ranks are logically compatible with nested sets of species, monophyletic groups, and characters. Other authors have offered conventions to increase the cladistic information content of Linnaean names or to replace them with names that convey cladistic knowledge in greater detail; de Queiroz and Gauthier sacrifice the meaning of taxon names and categorical ranks in favor of spelling stability.