2.1 Tribe Barbitistini Jacobson, 1905

Ünal (2025) devoted considerable attention to the genera Isophya Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1878 and Poecilimon Fischer, 1853 (pp. 13–28). Within this section, he proposed a series of nomenclatural changes, described new species, and reported both previously published and unpublished localities. Although much could be said about each paragraph and sentence in detail, such a commentary would serve little purpose in this context. Instead, we consider it sufficient to identify the fundamental flaws from the standpoint of scientific norms. Once these flaws are recognized, it becomes apparent that most of the taxonomic acts presented in Ünal (2025) deviate significantly from contemporary scientific standards and exemplify how biodiversity data can be rendered unreliable.

On page 17, Ünal (2025) includes the following statement, expressing the view that molecular studies alone are not reliable in taxonomic practice:

“ Molecular studies play a crucial role in understanding the relationships among different taxa. However, the descriptions of new genus group taxa are not reliable unless they are supported by distinctive morphological characteristics in both sexes.”

The idea that phylogeny constitutes the sole valid criterion for defining natural taxa originates with Darwin and, through subsequent developments (see Hennig 1966; De Queiroz 2007; Schuh & Brower 2009), has become a universal consensus. As stated earlier, in taxonomy, hypotheses are tested through phylogenies, and this testing process represents the only criterion by which a taxonomic act attains scientific legitimacy. To reject this approach is to reject the contemporary scientific paradigm of taxonomy itself, thereby placing one’s work outside the realm of science. In the text prepared by the Ünal (2025) for the tribe Barbitistini, there are numerous examples of the same nature; only a few are addressed here.

Commenting on subgenus Hamatopoecilimon, defined by Heller et al. (2011) and Borissov et al. (2023), Ünal (2025) states “ The ancestral position on the phylogenetic trees based on molecular data of this group is the only distinct data that separates it from the others. It is, in fact, not beyond a species group. P. hamatus sp. group for P. hamatus, P. paros, and P. klausgerhardi was proposed by the author (Ünal 2010) “. The author is wrong, because not only the former authors used a combination of morpho-acoustic characters to define the subgenus, supported by molecular data (Ullrich et al. 2010), but Borissov et al. (2023) constructed phylogenetic trees based on publicly available sequences, according to which, with high support Hamatopoecilimon is a sister group to all other members of Poecilimon. Obviously Ünal (2025) missed one of the major outputs of the study by Borissov et al. (2023). As a conclusion, we do not accept Ünal’s (2025) synonymization of Hamatopoecilimon and ask internationally recognized databases to try at least equally reflecting the findings of studies based on experimentally tested hypotheses.

The author applies the same reasoning that he expressed for the subgenus Hamatopoecilimon Heller, 2011 to his treatment of species groups, both in defining new ones and in reinterpreting those previously defined. Species groups within Poecilimon were first defined by Ramme (1933), who indicated the diagnostic apomorphies of each group, at a time when methods for generating phylogenies were not yet available. Since then, these species groups have been used, referenced, and refined by researchers working in the field (see Boztepe et al. 2013; Kaya et al. 2012a, 2012b, 2015, 2018; Borissov et al. 2020, 2021; Sevgili et al. 2018, among others). Most importantly, these groups have recently been tested and restructured using molecular and phenotypic data (Borissov et al. 2023). Although Ünal (2025) cites Borissov et al. (2023), he disregards the species-group framework presented in that study. Instead, both in his earlier work (Ünal 2010) and in his most recent publication (Ünal 2025), he arbitrarily defines alternative species groups without identifying any apomorphy that characterizes them and, in a way, largely inconsistent with the previous literature. Some of these groups partially overlap with the original ones proposed by Ramme (1933) or with those later redefined by Borissov et al. (2023), but their species compositions may differ. Moreover, the author ignores numerous phylogenetic studies based on large datasets that directly address the taxonomy of the relevant groups. These include, for Isophya, the studies of Sevgili et al. (2006), Grzywacz-Gibała et al. (2010), and Chobanov et al. (2016), and for Poecilimon, the works of Borissov et al. (2021), Çıplak et al. (2023), Uluar et al. (2025), and Ortego et al. (2024). By disregarding such studies, he constructs taxa and introduces nomenclatural changes unsupported by data. In summary, Ünal (2025) has generated a substantial amount of illicit and non-scientific data concerning the taxonomy of Isophya and Poecilimon within the tribe Barbitistini.

Another case concerns the Poecilimon zonatus Bolívar, 1899 species group. Ünal (2025: 18) states:

“ This species group was recently reviewed three times by three groups of authors, using acoustic and molecular methods. Although one of the authors provided two reviews, the results and classification of each study were different from each other. The present situation of this group is more chaotic than the previous state. This group will be addressed in a further study. ”

The “three reviews” to which he refers likely indicate the studies of Kaya (2018), Sevgili et al. (2018), and Uluar et al. (2025). However, he avoids citing them. More importantly, he lists a new record of Poecilimon zonatus Bolívar, 1899 from the type locality of an already known species, P. ciplaki denizliensis Kaya, 2018, which was later elevated to species rank by Uluar et al. (2025). By doing so, the author implicitly declares that he does not recognize the data and taxonomy presented in these three studies and that he intends to revisit the group in a future publication. In essence, ignoring these publications and stating that “ This group will be addressed in a further study” raises concerns about the possibility of future taxonomic vandalism.

A taxonomist should not aim to simplify or to complicate matters. Whatever the data indicate, whether simple or complex, is the truth, and decisions must be based on that evidence. Respect for truth and impartiality toward data are fundamental principles of scientific ethics, and failure to uphold them constitutes a serious ethical breach. The author explicitly expresses bias. Otherwise, the Poecilimon zonatus locality he reported from Denizli Province should have been assigned correctly as P. denizliensis, thus avoiding a violation of ICZN rules.

When taxonomic data are modified to fit a predetermined aim, when the data of other studies are ignored, and when current taxonomic frameworks are disregarded, the resulting publications lose both scientific validity and reliability. In this (Ünal, 2025) and other earlier works, the author notes that certain localities or specimens previously reported in the literature are presented under different taxonomic names. His taxonomic decisions are expressed not in the language of data, but through personal commentary, that is, as subjective assertions.

As the last example from Poecilimon, Ünal (2025) claims that Poecilimon anatolicus Ramme, 1933 and P. sureyanus Uvarov, 1930 are easily distinguishable, disregarding the contrary evidence presented by Kaya et al. (2012) and Chobanov et al. (2015). Moreover, a recent large-scale genetic study on the Poecilimon bosphoricus Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1878 species group (Çıplak et al. 2023), published in a leading journal, has once again demonstrated that these two taxa do not represent independent reproductive entities. Notably, Ünal (2025) ignores this publication entirely and does not cite it.

The understanding of species taxa presented in Ünal (2025) excludes all of the widely accepted species concepts in taxonomy. Although numerous species concepts have been proposed in the literature (Mallet 1995), they converge on several fundamental principles. Within the context of sexually reproducing organisms, there is broad consensus that each species represents a reproductive unit (Mayr & Ashlock 1991). It is also well established that the individuals forming such a unit constitute a population and, therefore, a group of individuals sharing a common gene pool (Coyne & Orr 2004; Zachos 2016). Since they share a gene pool, these individuals belong to the same genetic cluster (the “genetic cluster” concept of Baum & Shaw 1995). A reproductive unit is not limited to a single generation but extends across successive generations, defining the continuity of relationships over time. Consequently, a species is a unit that possesses both a distinct phylogenetic history and a current evolutionary trajectory (Hennig 1966). Because individuals forming a reproductive unit are products of the same gene pool, they are also expected to display phenotypic similarity (Sneath & Sokal 1973). Therefore, it is undisputed that species can be defined either by shared apomorphies (Ridley 1989) or by forming an ecological unit due to their similar ecological requirements (the ecological species concept; Van Valen 1976). Each of these principles defines a valid criterion for species delimitation within its respective context. In modern taxonomic practice, all of these fundamentals are considered together, but a general order of application is recognized: phylogenetic distinctiveness represents the primary feature of a species taxon, whereas independent phylogenetic entities are subsequently delimited using secondary criteria such as reproductive, genetic, ecological, and phenotypic cohesion (De Queiroz 2007). Any taxonomic practice that disregards these principles falls outside the domain of science. Put differently, taxonomy conducted without an understanding of populations, gene pools, speciation processes, phylogenetic methods based on data sources (such as DNA), or the criteria defining ecological unity cannot be regarded as consistent with the modern scientific framework of taxonomy. Such approaches not only lack scientific validity but also damage taxonomy and the integrity of taxonomic knowledge itself. When carried out deliberately, such practices constitute examples of taxonomic vandalism.

The taxonomic approach and practice exemplified in Ünal (2025) directly contradict all the essential criteria outlined above. His treatment of the Poecilimon bosphoricus species group—divided by the author into three separate groups (P. similis, P. sureyanus, and P. bosphoricus)—provides a striking example of such violations in the context of species taxonomy. A comprehensive dataset covering more than 23 species within this group, including extensive DNA sequence data in terms of species coverage, sequence number per species and sequence length, was recently published, and the taxonomy of the group was evaluated in detail (Çıplak et al. 2023). When Ünal’s (2025) taxonomic decisions are evaluated in light of the results presented by Çıplak et al. (2023), several inconsistencies become apparent. The three separate species groups proposed by Ünal (2025) actually form a single monophyletic group. Moreover, not only do individual species, but even all three of Ünal’s designated groups, share haplotypes extensively. For instance, haplotypes of three species previously described by Ünal, namely P. naskrecki Ünal, 2001, P. istanbul Ünal, 2010 and P. diversus Ünal, 2010, scattered in separate haplo-clades. Most species in the P. bosphoricus group exhibit haplotype sharing, and automatic species-delimitation analyses applied to the genetic data support the existence of only seven or eight species within the group.

The DNA sequence data reported by Çıplak et al. (2023) have been made publicly available in the GenBank database, where they can be freely accessed, downloaded, and re-analysed by any researcher. If any doubt exists concerning the reliability of these data, as implied by Ünal (2025: 41) in his remarks on the genus Anterastes, the appropriate course of action would be to collect new specimens, generate sequence data, and conduct analyses based on those original data. Only results obtained in this manner can be scientifically evaluated and grant the right to comment on the validity of another dataset.

When genetic data (for example, phylogenetic analyses and automated species delimitation based on DNA sequences) are disregarded, all major criteria defining a species taxon are effectively violated. Organisms do not transmit their phenotypes, such as structures like the cerci, anal tergite, or ovipositor, to subsequent generations; rather, they transmit only their genetic material. Scientific reasoning proceeds upon this biological foundation, and therefore the deliberate disregard of published genetic data constitutes a serious methodological and ethical violation. Ünal (2025) ignored the findings of Çıplak et al. (2023) and, without citing that study, proposed two new species and one subspecies within the same group. Yet, previous analyses had already demonstrated ongoing gene flow within this group. If such genetic exchange exists, what do these newly described species and subspecies represent? How can they be regarded as independent reproductive entities? The methodological basis, data use, conceptual coherence, and overall reliability of such taxonomic decisions must therefore be carefully questioned. This approach reflects the characteristic features of what Evenhuis (2008) and O’Hara (2011) have termed the “mihi itch.” The newly described taxa in Ünal (2025) are most likely geographic variants within the P. bosphoricus group (sensu Kaya et al. 2012) and, when viewed in the context of the broader patterns reported by Çıplak et al. (2023), they almost certainly do not constitute independent gene pools. As a comprehensive study on the genus Poecilimon (O. Uluar et al. in preparation) will soon be published, we do not, at present, propose any nomenclatural changes.