In the August 2015 edition of British Wildlife magazine there is an interesting account of developments in the field of lichens. The author, Mark Powell, ends by writing "Some amateur lichenologists are losing their nerve now that molecular taxonomy is revealing cryptic species and causing inevitable name changes. I prefer to think that we are at the dawn of a golden age, with a powerful new tool to help us. Amateur field recorders are far from redundant, and careful fieldwork and conventional light microscopy still yield many of the new discoveries. One day I may spread my wings more widely, but for the moment there seems plenty to discover in the Home Counties."
There seem to be few areas of flora and fauna that are not under scrutiny due to molecular biology where, broadly speaking, specimens that appear identical in their form (as phenotypes) may differ at the molecular level (as genotypes). I have, for example, recently learnt that a very common little fly (Micropsectra atrofasciata) has been split into, I think, seven different species based on molecular studies. Our well-known (or is it well-known?) white-tailed bumble bee, Bombus lucorum, includes several of what are known as 'cryptic species' making the recording of B.lucorum s.str somewhat difficult. Most bumble bee literature and web guides do not mention this recent difficulty so, presumably, records of B. lucorum sens lat. will still come in. People like me, however, may not bother to submit B. lucorum records as I do not have the ability or laboratory facilities to separate the cryptic species. In their paper on the Bombus lucorum issue Murray et al. say "Cryptic species diversity is thought to be common within the class Insecta, posing problems for basic ecological and population genetic studies and conservation management." https://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofBiologicalSciences/People/DrRJPaxton/S electedPublications/PDFs/Filetoupload,126665,en.pdf The concept of what a species (other than a human construct) actually is has been debated ad nauseam and it looks as though agreement is becoming ever less likely. However, I like to think that names of organisms that look identical are at one level ways in which we communicate with each other. A record is a way of saying to someone else that I am claiming to have seen such and such a species (or representative of a species complex) at such and such a place at such and such a time. It gives others the opportunity to go and have a look for themselves and I believe it would be a great loss not to make such an opportunity available to others on the basis that the observation had not been subject to the scrutiny of molecular taxonomy. I would be interested in the views of others. Patrick Roper
