2.5.1 Genus Psorodonotus Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1861

The text in Ünal (2025: 33–34) concerning two species of the genus Psorodonotus (and the reason why only two species were selected while all others were entirely ignored, which is itself questionable) contains several noteworthy peculiarities. Ünal (2025) states that P. rize Kaya & Çıplak, 2014 is a synonym of P. davisi Karabağ, 1957, with the remark, “ Psorodonotus rize was designated as a synonym of this species (Ünal 2018: 17). The reasons for the synonymy remain. ” This statement raises a number of fundamental questions. Why did Ünal (2025) feel the need to repeat the synonymy he had already proposed in 2018, and for what conceptual reason was this repetition necessary? Was he not sufficiently confident in his initial decision? Did Ünal (2025) present any additional data or analysis confirming the synonymy claim? Such questions could easily be multiplied, but each points to the same underlying intellectual issue. Similarly, the explanations regarding the synonymization of P. giresun Kaya & Çıplak, 2014 with P. soganli Ünal, 2013 are no less intriguing. To avoid redundancy, both pairs of species are considered together below.

As with the other examples discussed in this paper, the statements regarding Psorodonotus species reflect a particular attitude. To understand this, one must refer to the original study, Kaya et al. (2014), in which these species were described. That study focused on the P. specularis (Fischer von Waldheim, 1839) species group and included specimens from 16 populations representing a total of 21 localities (more recent data indicate that these species do not form a monophyletic group; see below). In Kaya et al. (2014), except for P. inflatus, which was represented only by museum specimens, the number of individuals analysed per population ranged from 15 to 62. Although populations were associated with particular species, the analyses were performed not at the species level (to ensure objectivity of the data) but by treating populations as OTUs (Operational Taxonomic Units; Sneath & Sokal 1973). In this way, full authority was given to the empirical data themselves. The data obtained were evaluated according to the fundamental criteria used in determining species-level taxa (summarized above): whether they confirmed the validity of existing species and whether they revealed distinct entities that did not correspond to previously known species but met the requirements of a species taxon. As a result of this process, P. rize Kaya & Çıplak, 2014 and P. giresun Kaya & Çıplak, 2014 were described as new species.

Considering the points outlined above, the synonymization of the species pairs P. davisi / P. rize and P. soganli / P. giresun in Ünal (2025) requires acknowledgment of the following fundamental facts: (1) Did Kaya et al. (2014) include populations representing the senior species P. davisi and P. soganli? Yes. The former was represented by two populations and the latter by four. (2) Were empirical data and diagnostic characters provided to distinguish the sister species pairs P. davisi / P. rize and P. soganli / P. giresun? Yes. Both extensive sampling (P. davisi: 84 individuals; P. rize: 44 individuals; P. soganli: 74 individuals; P. giresun: 35 individuals) and analyses based on linear and geometric morphometrics, as well as male calling-song characteristics, were conducted, and the results were presented. (3) Is there any indication of overlap or variation in the diagnostic characters? Diagnostic characters such as the number of stridulatory pegs (which clearly distinguishes P. soganli and P. giresun) and the shape of the male cerci (which clearly distinguishes P. davisi and P. rize) show no overlap in variation ranges between the sister species, forming unequivocally distinct clusters (Figs 3–4). The results of analyses of other phenotypic features, particularly male calling-song characters, can be found in Kaya et al. (2014). Moreover, the study explicitly stated that the phenotypic results were interpreted in the light of the genetic data.

A dataset including two nuclear and two mitochondrial gene sequences was also reported in an unpublished project report (Çıplak & Kaya 2015) (for partially published data see Kaya & Çıplak 2015, 2016, 2017). A timecalibrated phylogenetic tree based on the COI (cytochrome c oxidase subunit I) haplotype from the same dataset (Çıplak & Kaya 2015, unpublished project report) is reproduced here.As shown in Figure 5, all four species represent independent phylogenetic lineages. The sister-species pairs (P. davisi / P. rize and P. soganli / P. giresun) split from each other approximately 2.3 million years ago at the beginning of the Pleistocene, and there is no evidence of gene sharing between the sister species at present. All four genes yield consistent results, clearly demonstrating that each species possesses an independent gene pool and, consequently, an independent reproductive community. At this point, several unavoidable questions arise. Has Prof. Ünal actually read Kaya et al. (2014)? His citation of the work and his attempt to synonymize the species described therein indicate that he must have examined it. Furthermore, the doctoral dissertation of Dr. Kaya (Thesis No. 389672 available at https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/), which includes portions of the information presented in the project report, is publicly accessible, indicating that these data are available to everyone. Therefore, either the relevant data were never examined, or they were examined and deliberately ignored. Moreover, considering the statement “ The reasons for the synonymy remain, ” a third and more serious possibility emerges that this approach reflects a deliberate, preconceived decision.

In Ünal (2018: 18), without presenting any empirical data, the author claimed that P. rize is a synonym of P. davisi, basing this conclusion solely on the following statements:

“ It seems to me the differences, which are very small, given by Kaya et al. (2014) are typically in a variation range of a single species, including the songs.” ….. “ In my opinion it is not more different from a population of the same species. Therefore, P. rize is proposed as a synonym of this species. ”

Making assertions about variation without providing any data, with statements that lack clarity and are no more informative than “spot-the-difference” puzzles, constitutes a purely subjective claim and falls outside the scope of science. Quite frankly, this represents a clear example of the mihi itch. We leave the judgment to the readers.

Data presented in the project report (Çıplak & Kaya 2015) indicate that evolution in phenotype and genome has not shaped in parallel, indicating several convergence and divergence among species of Psorodonotus. This requires another paper waiting to be written soon. However, the phylogenetic tree presented here—necessitated the redefinition of species groups and their compositions within the genus Psorodonotus. These new data do not support the groupings proposed by Kaya et al. (2014). In light of this tree, the species groups and their included taxa are as follows: