S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 48. (Budapest, 1987)
FOLIA ENTOMOLOGICA HUNGARICA ROVARTANI KÖZLEMÉNYEK XLVIII 1987 p. 17-20 A critique of Steffen Woas: Beitrag zur Revision der Oppioidea sensu Balogh, 1972 (Acari, Oribatei) By J. BALOGH (Received March 1, 1987) Abstract: A critique of Steffen Woas: Beitrag zur Revision der Oppioidea sensu Balogh, 1972 (Acari, Oribatei). - Critical comments are made on S. WOAS' (1986) paper: Beitrag zur Revision der Oppioidea sensu Balogh, 1972 (Acari, Oribatei). Revision of higher systematic groups can be done according to two points of view . Firstly: the taxonomic similarities and differences among the various taxa are considered as given and an arrangement is carried out based on these attributes. A commonly used form of arrangement is an identification key.An identification key is constructed in a stepwise manner, based on the differential features of the taxa . In constructing such a key, attributes are essentially coded in a binary system, so it is fairly easy to convert this key to a computer programme. A carefully constructed identification key encompasses the combinations of the differential features of the taxa in a hierarchical manner, hence the differential diagnoses of a series of possible hierarchically arranged higher taxa are also at hand. It is up to the author whether to name any of these combinations of attributes as a supraspecific systematic taxon. Secondly: during the course of a systematic revision essentially the same procedure is followed. One distinguishing feature is that the similarities and differences among the taxa are not considered as given but as a function of a hypothetical element, the degree of relatedness. One assumption is that similarity is a result of common ancestry. In this paper I do not wish to join the debate on natural and artificial taxonomic systems as the most important arguments and counter-arguments have already been reiterated a countless number of times. We know that the theory of evolution is accepted by almost every biologist as there is no better argument to replace it. In pratice, however, this theory is of less utility, as e.g. there is not a single palaeontological find to support the evolutionary system of the Oppioidae group, and of the ca. 1000 described species, the developmental stages of only a few are known. Therefore both the taxonomist and the evolutionary system atist have the same factual data to work with: i.e. the type specimens of described taxa, and publications. I myself study the taxonomic arrangement of oribatid mites. Our present state of knowledge of the Oribatidae of the world Is about 100 years behind that of other animal groups. Since it is impossible to jump into a time tunnel and skip these hundred years, presently most of the time and effort of acarologists is devoted to collection and description of the world oribatid fauna. This is especially urgent as the native vegetation of the Earth is being devastated at a rapid rate, and the most important habitats of the oribatids are disappearing. The number of oribatidclogists is very small, so young students and zoologists should be encouraged in every possible way to work in this field. Since 1961 I have published mainly identification keys which review the state of taxonomical knowledge at the generic level. This work, like all taxonomic work of this kind, poses a dilemma for everyone. The majority of oribatid species have been described only briefly, inadequately, yet they can be identified. If we want to use the literature, we must follow the principle of the "Weakest link": the identification keys must be based on the most easily recognizable features found in most descriptions. If all of a sudden we raise the standard higher hundreds of species would become "incertae sedls" and the grotesque situation would occur when by increasing the standard of sudy r we would in fact go backwards in the study of the world fauna. I believe the same is true for the description of new taxa, and if we examine the literature dealing with the systematics of arthropods, apparently the majority of taxonomists are of the same opinion. If I had the choice of knowing 10 % of the world
