thanks for posting this MS.
I can only congratulate the authors, because we are really in a crisis of taxonomy. And only because of so many are publishing only molecular results, often without ever havening even seen the specimens. I, being a managing editor of a scientific journal now for nearly 20 years (quarterly: aqua, International Journal of Ichthyology), have seen things in congresses and during ichthyological conferences, in publications (where I ask myself who, or does anyone at all, review these papers before they are printed...) and elsewhere, that I can only shake my head.
I could write here for days of things which are just not to believe, and not only in fishes, aslo in other animals and even plants. Some create whole new families and change the entire phylogeny of the animal or plants - entirely, and only based on molecular results (which often are dubius). Ane every single one poerson (or group) working only molecular, has a comolete different result, than the other group. Recently in Perth, Australia, I wittnessed 3 groups having a oral presentation on Cypriniformes and each one only did molecular reserach and each was completely differnt, nothing similar.
The question is really what is it all about. We in aqua do not accept any MS which is entirely based on molecular results, ONLy if molecular results are in addition made to the "normal" description as we know it for 2.5 centuries.
Thank you Bojan,
all the best