RESUMO
The systematics of many groups of organisms has been based on the adult stage. Morphological transformations that occur during development from the embryonic to the adult stage make it difficult (or impossible) to identify a juvenile (larval) stage in some species. Hydrachnidia (Acari, Actinotrichida, which inhabit mainly continental waters) are characterized by three main active stages-larval, deutonymph and adult-with intermediate dormant stages. Deutonymphs and adults may be identified through diagnostic morphological characters. Larvae that have not been tracked directly from a gravid female are difficult to identify to the species level. In this work, we compared the morphology of five water mite larvae and obtained the molecular sequences of that found on a pupa of the common mosquito Culex (Culex) pipiens with the sequences of 51 adults diagnosed as Arrenurus species and identified the undescribed larvae as Arrenurus (Micruracarus) novus. Further corroborating this finding, adult A. novus was found thriving in the same mosquito habitat. We established the identity of adult and deutonymph A. novus by morphology and by correlating COI and cytB sequences of the water mites at the larval, deutonymph and adult (both male and female) life stages in a particular case of 'reverse taxonomy'. In addition, we constructed the Arrenuridae phylogeny based on mitochondrial DNA, which supports the idea that three Arrenurus subgenera are 'natural': Arrenurus, Megaluracarus and Micruracarus, and the somewhat arbitrary distinction of the species assigned to the subgenus Truncaturus.
RESUMO
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.