Modern Coral Taxonomy Requires Reproducible Data Alongside Field Observations—Comments on Veron et al. (2025)

Le résumé fourni par la source

The recent review by Veron et al. (2025) posits that quantitative genomic evidence used to understand coral evolution should be secondary to species hypotheses derived from expert opinion based on field experience. The authors argue that morphological “biological entities” should take precedence over molecular evidence when conflicts arise. This perspective required the rejection of extensive, independent molecular datasets that have progressively converged on a robust evolutionary framework for reef corals. Here, we reaffirm how prioritising subjective visual assessments over quantitative genetic and genomic data is methodologically unsound and scientifically regressive. We reject the framing of this perspective as “morphology versus molecules”. Rather, it is a fundamental divergence between two opposing philosophies: a static system anchored in non-reproducible expert judgement, and an integrative framework where genetic data provide the necessary independent test of morphological hypotheses. We show how a reliance on “field entities” obscures true morphological patterns by failing to distinguish between phenotypic plasticity, convergence, and evolutionary divergence. Effective taxonomy requires species hypotheses to be testable, and to stand or fall on the strength of reproducible evidence. Such a framework does not replace morphology; it validates it by providing an explicit, testable basis for evaluating morphological hypotheses. The integration of testable, reproducible molecular analysis with other lines of evidence including morphology is the benchmark of modern taxonomy across all Kingdoms of Life. We address the logical inconsistencies in the general arguments put forward by Veron et al. (2025) and refute their specific rejection of recent Acropora species-level revision with reproducible data.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.