Zootaxa 4137 (1): 121–128 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2016 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) http://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4137.1.9 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:4AA64424-FF21-4CAC-945B-1C9F08BCDC58 Timeless standards for species delimitation DALTON S. AMORIM1,29, CHARLES MORPHY D. SANTOS2, FRANK-THORSTEN KRELL3, ALAIN DUBOIS4, SILVIO S. NIHEI5, OTTO M.P. OLIVEIRA2, ADRIAN PONT6, HOJUN SONG7, VANESSA K. VERDADE2, DIEGO A. FACHIN1, BRUNA KLASSA2, CARLOS JOSÉ E. LAMAS8, SARAH S. OLIVEIRA9, CLAUDIO J. B. DE CARVALHO10, CÁTIA A. MELLO-PATIU11, EDUARDO HAJDU11, MÁRCIA S. COURI11, VERA C. SILVA12, RENATO S. CAPELLARI13, RAFAELA L. FALASCHI8, RODRIGO M. FEITOSA10, LORENZO PRENDINI14, JOSÉ P. POMBAL JR.11, FERNANDO FERNÁNDEZ15, ROSANA M. ROCHA10, JOHN E. LATTKE10, ULISSES CARAMASCHI11, MARCELO DUARTE8, ANTONIO CARLOS MARQUES5, ROBERTO E. REIS16, OLAVI KURINA17, DANIELA M. TAKIYA18, MARCOS TAVARES8, DANIEL SILVA FERNANDES18, FRANCISCO LUÍS FRANCO19, FABIANA CUEZZO20, DENNIS PAULSON21, BENOIT GUÉNARD22, BIRGIT C. SCHLICK-STEINER23, WOLFGANG ARTHOFER23, FLORIAN M. STEINER23, BRIAN L. FISHER24, ROBERT A. JOHNSON25, THIBAUT DOMINIQUE DELSINNE26, DAVID A. DONOSO27, PABLO RICARDO MULIERI28, LUCIANO DAMIÁN PATITUCCI28, JAMES M. CARPENTER14, LEE HERMAN14 & DAVID GRIMALDI14 1Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Bandei- rantes, 3900, 14040-901, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil 2Centro de Ciências Naturais e Humanas, Universidade Federal do ABC, Rua Santa Adélia, 166, Bairro Bangu, 09210-170, Santo André, SP, Brazil 3Department of Zoology, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Boulevard, Denver CO 80205-5798, U.S.A. 4Institut de Systématique, Évolution, Biodiversité, ISYEB – UMR 7205 – CNRS, MNHN, UPMC, EPHE, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Sorbonne Universités, 57 rue Cuvier, CP 30, F-75005, Paris, France 5Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, Rua do Matão, Travessa 14, n. 101, Cidade Univer- sitária, São Paulo, SP, 05508-900, Brazil 6Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PW, UK. 7Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, Biological Control Facility, Room 118-119, College Station, TX 77843-2475, U.S.A. 8Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo. Avenida Nazaré, 481, Ipiranga, 04263-000, São Paulo, SP, Brazil 9Departamento de Ecologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Campus II. Prédio ICB1. Avenida Esperança, s/n, Campus Samambaia, 74690-900, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil 10Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Caixa Postal 19020, 81531-980, Curitiba, PR, Brazil 11Museu Nacional, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Parque Quinta da Boa Vista s/nº, São Cristóvão, 20940-040 Rio de Janeiro RJ, Brazil 12Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias de Jaboticabal, UNESP –Univ Estadual Paulista, Campus Jaboticabal, Departa- mento de Morfologia e Fisiologia Animal, Via de Acesso Professor Paulo Donato Castellane, s/n, Vila Industrial, 14884-900, Jaboti- cabal, SP, Brazil 13Instituto Federal do Triângulo Mineiro, 38064-790 , Uberaba, MG, Brazil 14Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th St., New York, 10024-5192, U.S.A. 15Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Carrera 30 No. 45 - 03, Bogotá D.C., Colombia 16Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul. P.O. Box 1429, 90619-900 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil 17Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi st 5D, 51014 Tartu, Estonia 18Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Carlos Chagas Filho 373, CCS, Bloco A, 21941-902, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil 19Laboratório Especial de Coleções Zoológicas, Instituto Butantan, Av. Dr. Vital Brasil, 1500, 05503-900 São Paulo SP, Brazil 20INSUE – CONICET, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 205 T4000JFE, San Miguel de Tucuman, Argentina 20Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA 98416, USA. 22School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Kadoorie Biological Sciences Building, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, PRC Accepted by A. Minelli: 27 May 2016; published: 8 Jul. 2016 121 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 23Molecular Ecology Group, Institute of Ecology, University of Innsbruck, Technikerstr. 25, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria 24Department of Entomology, California Academy of Sciences, 55 Music Concourse Drive San Francisco, CA 94118, U.S.A. 25School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85282-4501, U.S.A. 26Société d'Histoire Naturelle Alcide d'Orbigny, 57 rue de Gergovie, 63170 Aubière, France 27Instituto de Ciencias Biológicas, Escuela Politécnica Nacional, Av. Ladrón de Guevara E11-253, Quito, Ecuador 28División Entomología, Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales "Bernardino Rivadavia", Av. Angel Gallardo 470,- C1405DJR Bue- nos Aires Argentina 29Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] The Original Controversy Recently a new species of bombyliid fly, Marleyimyia xylocopae, was described by Marshall & Evenhuis (2015) based on two photographs taken during fieldwork in the Republic of South Africa. This species has no preserved holotype. The paper generated some buzz, especially among dipterists, because in most cases photographs taken in the field provide insufficient information for properly diagnosing and documenting species of Diptera. Santos et al. (2016) expressed their dismay about this publication and that kind of practice in taxonomy. The approach taken by Marshall & Evenhuis (2015) was considered an undesirable, even dangerous, shortcut, showing disregard for robust taxonomic practices that have proven exceptionally useful for two and a half centuries. The benefits of having a name for an additional species, even of a beautiful insect, are far outweighed by the potential disadvantages that such taxonomic practice may cause for biology. Indeed, it is difficult to predict the scientific implications when traditional standards are abandoned. Precision in scientific communication in any paper, scientific journal, technical report, and everyday communication about the biological features—from biochemistry to behavior and conservation—of all taxa fundamentally depends on the quality and stability of the biological nomenclature. The same names given to different species or higher taxa, or different names given to the same taxon may cause major confusion and misinterpretation, and even huge losses of money if pest species are misidentified. Economically important Bemisia whiteflies, for instance, that were originally identified as one and, later, two species (Toscano et al. 1998), are now considered to form a complex involving “11 well-defined high-level groups containing at least 24 morphologically indistinguishable species” (De Barro et al. 2011). There is a lot at stake in a system with close to 2,000,000 species names and counting. Marshall & Evenhuis’s (2015) arguments in support of their position on the use of photographs instead of preserved holotype specimens are unconvincing and have been earlier addressed by Dubois (2009, 2010). Both Marshall and Evenhuis are experienced taxonomists and, hence, have a very clear understanding of the central role of physical holotypes in taxonomy. They are aware of the risks, and are clearly against generally abandoning proven standards. They nonetheless predict, however, that: (1) more digital photographs of unpreserved specimens are and will be available for taxonomic use; and (2) the trend of describing new species without preserved type specimens is “inevitable”. Why claim a trend to be “inevitable” and promote it through practice, if they do not want to encourage the practice by others? Criticisms by Santos et al. (2016) were not directed against the use of modern technology in taxonomy. They addressed the pitfalls of the misuse thereof. The use of new technologies should, of course, be encouraged, but as a valuable addition, not as a substitute for the entire taxonomic process of collecting, preparing, comparing, describing, and delimiting species, that allows identifications (which are always hypotheses) to be double-checked. The existing obstacles to properly delimiting and identifying species are already complex enough even with holotypes at hand. While technology, such as digital imaging, improves many aspects of modern taxonomic practice (Santos et al. 2016), the major flaw in the argument by Marshall & Evenhuis (2015) is to confuse the issue of data sources with the issue of quality protocols. As sources of information, high-tech photos are welcome in taxonomy. Holotype specimens physically present in collections, however, represent quality protocols for a growingly complex system. Marshall & Evenhuis (2015) stated that images of living specimens may provide information not discernible in preserved specimens. True, but minimally so. Photographs provide a very limited set of characters, lacking information available from holotype vouchers, such as sequences, internal anatomy etc. No image, even in 3-D, provides the data of a preserved specimen. It cannot be denied that the lack of a physical holotype creates a significant problem, since proper verifiability