identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03A287D64655704FFF3CBE16FA3074F3.text	03A287D64655704FFF3CBE16FA3074F3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Barbitistini Jacobson 1905	<div><p>2.1 Tribe Barbitistini Jacobson, 1905</p><p>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he proposed a series of nomenclatural changes, described new species, and reported both previously published and unpublished localities.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.</p><p>On page 17, Ünal (2025) includes the following statement, expressing the view that molecular studies alone are not reliable in taxonomic practice:</p><p>“ 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.”</p><p>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 &amp; 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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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 .</p><p>Another case concerns the Poecilimon zonatus Bolívar, 1899 species group. Ünal (2025: 18) states:</p><p>“ 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. ”</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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 &amp; 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 &amp; Orr 2004; Zachos 2016). Since they share a gene pool, these individuals belong to the same genetic cluster (the “genetic cluster” concept of Baum &amp; 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 &amp; 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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A287D64655704FFF3CBE16FA3074F3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Çiplak, Battal;Uluar, Onur;Chobanov, Dragan P.	Çiplak, Battal, Uluar, Onur, Chobanov, Dragan P. (2026): A legacy that challenges science: Rectifying vandalistic practices in Orthoptera taxonomy. Zootaxa 5752 (2): 238-262, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4
03A287D64650704EFF3CBBF2FC9477B7.text	03A287D64650704EFF3CBBF2FC9477B7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bolua Unal 1999	<div><p>2.2 Genus Bolua Ünal, 1999</p><p>The genus Bolua was originally described as monotypic (Ünal 1999). It was later revised by Uluar et al. (2022) using an integrative approach combining morphology, male calling songs, and sequences from four different gene segments, through which intraspecific diversity within the genus was characterized. Because species delimitation in Uluar et al. (2022) was primarily based on DNA sequence data, the authors provided information only for examined specimens, considering it potentially misleading to speculate about unexamined localities reported in other publications. Ünal (2025), however, rejected the diversity framework proposed in that study on a genetic basis and synonymized the two newly described species.</p><p>In Ünal (2025: 39–40), both the text and the figures related to Bolua differ in style from his other text and earlier publications. In this work, rather than presenting a limited number of visual or descriptive statements, he attempted to express his claims of variation through numerous photographs of male abdominal terminals. At first glance, this may be seen as a positive attempt to provide visually based empirical support for his claims. However, when no measurements are made and no quantitative analyses are performed, the resulting information cannot be considered empirical and does not constitute sufficient evidence for systematic evaluation. Interpretations based on non-quantified phenotypic differences are equivalent to the logic of a “spot-the-difference” puzzle. For instance, by assigning specific landmark points to the cerci shown in the 26 abdominal terminal photographs and conducting a geometric morphometric analysis, the degree of variation could have been statistically tested, and the author’s claims could have been evaluated meaningfully. However, instead of such an approach, a purely qualitative phenotypic comparison was preferred. This method allows readers to make their own subjective interpretations of the degree of variation by directly comparing photographs, thereby opening the door to interpretative bias. Below, additional comparative material is provided to assist in evaluating these assessments more objectively.</p><p>The essential question here is whether these photographs have any potential to test the three-species hypothesis proposed by Uluar et al. (2022). The answer is clearly no. The photo set corresponds to the distribution areas of two of the species recognized by Uluar et al. (2022), Bolua turkiyae Ünal, 1999 and B. bursaensis Uluar &amp; Çıplak, 2022, primarily the former. However, none of the photographs include representatives from the range of B. balikesirensis Uluar &amp; Çıplak, 2022 . Uluar et al. (2022) explicitly stated that the shape of the cerci distinguishes B. balikesirensis from the other two species, while B. turkiyae and B. bursaensis are either indistinguishable or only subtly differentiated (a case of a conserved phenotype but deep genetic divergence). It is therefore unclear on what basis B. balikesirensis, which is not even represented among the examined specimens, was synonymized with B. turkiyae . From a scientific standpoint, the expected procedure would have been to visit the Balıkesir locality (the type locality of B. balikesirensis), collect new specimens, generate DNA sequence data, and then evaluate the synonymy—provided that the data were generated and reported with due respect for accuracy. Using data belonging to B. turkiyae and B. bursaensis to justify the synonymization of B. balikesirensis with B. turkiyae involves serious methodological inconsistencies. Therefore, the data presented in Ünal (2025) lack explanatory value in support of the proposed synonymy and, in fact, are consistent with the findings of Uluar et al. (2022).</p><p>The paragraph above was presented not to discuss whether the synonymization of the species are correct or incorrect, but rather to illustrate the methodological approach adopted by Ünal (2025). Ünal (2025) disregards the empirical evidence supporting the three species hypotheses proposed by Uluar et al. (2022). In contrast, the recognition of these species as independent entities in Uluar et al. (2022) was made within the framework of the criteria that we previously defined and that every taxonomist should be expected to know, namely reproductive unity, genetic unity, ecological unity, and phylogenetic distinctiveness. Are these species independent phylogenetic entities? Do they represent separate reproductive communities and, consequently, independent gene pools? Has each adapted to a distinct ecological zone? The data presented in Uluar et al. (2022) answer all of these questions clearly and without any doubt in the affirmative.These species diverged from a common ancestor approximately five million years ago and have persisted as independent entities to the present day. Each represents an allopatric population that has undergone both genetic and ecological differentiation. The distribution of the genus being restricted to northwestern Anatolia (and its absence from other parts of Anatolia), contrary to Ünal’s (2025) claim, indicates narrow ecological preferences. Moreover, distinct differences in male calling song between B. balikesirensis and B. bursaensis (unfortunately the song of B. turkiyae is not known) well align with the case listed above.</p><p>For comparison, the COI genetic divergence among the species described by Uluar et al. (2022) is around 8–9%, a value even similar with the COI genetic divergence between a human and a chimpanzee (whose common ancestor lived approximately five million years ago). This level of divergence exceeds the average intraspecific COI differences reported among animal species in the literature (Hebert et al. 2003; Zhang &amp; Bu 2022) and thus strongly supports the view that these taxa represent independent entities. Furthermore, each species possesses more than fifty unique apomorphic DNA base positions, as clearly indicated in Uluar et al. (2022). For this reason, we recommend that readers examine Ünal (2025) and Uluar et al. (2022) together and compare the presented data to form their own evaluations. All sequences used in Uluar et al. (2022) are publicly available in GenBank, and any researcher can download and re-analyze them to verify these conclusions.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A287D64650704EFF3CBBF2FC9477B7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Çiplak, Battal;Uluar, Onur;Chobanov, Dragan P.	Çiplak, Battal, Uluar, Onur, Chobanov, Dragan P. (2026): A legacy that challenges science: Rectifying vandalistic practices in Orthoptera taxonomy. Zootaxa 5752 (2): 238-262, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4
03A287D646517040FF3CB936FDAE704B.text	03A287D646517040FF3CB936FDAE704B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anterastes Brunner von Wattenwyl 1882	<div><p>2.3 Genus Anterastes Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1882</p><p>Ünal (2025) presented an extensive text concerning the genus Anterastes (pp.41–44).We consider a detailed discussion of every statement in that text unnecessary for three main reasons. First, explanations addressing all of Ünal’s (2025) arguments can already be found in previously published works (Çıplak 2004; Kaya &amp; Çıplak 2011; Kaya et al. 2012; Çıplak et al. 2010, 2015; KarŞı &amp; Çıplak 2019; Uluar et al. 2023) and repeating them here would be redundant. Second, there are deep methodological and conceptual differences between those studies and Ünal (2025).The two approaches represent entirely different paradigms,and comparing them would be as meaningless as comparing apples and oranges. Third, certain statements in Ünal (2025: 41) indicate that his conclusions were shaped within a pre-established judgmental framework, which seriously undermines the possibility of a rational discussion.</p><p>Ünal (2025) refers to unnamed “molecular biologists” and provides the following commentary:</p><p>“ Uluar et al. (2023: 568) stated, ‘We attempt to provide a reconciliation for the taxonomy of Anterastes + Koroglus using a data-based approach without subjective personal decision.’ However, as molecular biologists know, the selection of populations and/or haplotypes, as well as their distribution, significantly influences phylogenetic trees. This makes their selection process vital (see the remarks on Bolua turkiyae above). These selections are made personally (subjectively) by researchers like Uluar et al. (2023). For example, the inclusion or exclusion of a single haplotype from a specific population can alter the results and analyses regarding the placement of other haplotypes. If incorrect or incomplete information is used to support these findings, the resulting taxonomic decisions should be approached with suspicion.”</p><p>This statement raises several critical questions that must be addressed. Before listing these questions, it was necessary to note two issues. First, no molecular data has been found in any of Ünal’s publications. Second, all DNA data produced in our molecular studies (Çıplak 2004; Kaya &amp; Çıplak 2011; Çıplak et al. 2010, 2015; KarŞı &amp; Çıplak 2019; Uluar et al. 2023) are openly available in the GenBank database and can be freely re-evaluated and compared by any researcher. Did Ünal (2025) download these sequences and reanalyze them? If such an analysis was performed, did he report any results stating, for example, “ Following re-evaluation of the data, the phylogenetic structure and species boundaries have changed as follows ”? Furthermore, has he generated new DNA sequences from specimens and reported any findings demonstrating that the haplotypes he identified reveal different phylogenetic relationships? Has he provided any concrete evidence or analysis supporting his claim that the sampling in Uluar et al. (2023) was ’subjective’? Has he cited any scientific study to substantiate this claim, and is any such study known to exist? Each of these questions is essential for maintaining a rational framework of scientific criticism. Yet, when the current text is examined, the answer to all of them is clearly no. In this situation, readers are left with three critical questions: (1) On what reason these data/sampling was considered subjective? (2) How can taxonomic claims generated under a preconceived assumption or bias be considered reliable? (3) How can statements aimed at discrediting numerous studies published in leading journals of the field be regarded as acceptable within scientific and ethical norms?</p><p>The taxonomic approach and practice exhibited by Ünal (2025) in relation to the genus Anterastes provide, from another perspective, striking examples of how the fundamental standards of modern taxonomy violated. This publication includes several typical cases that demonstrate when a taxonomic work ceases to belong to the scientific domain. To clarify this claim, and with the reader’s understanding, we find it necessary to re-present some data previously published elsewhere. The most recent phylogenetic analysis of the genus Anterastes was presented by Uluar et al. (2023) (see Fig. 1). The phylogenetic relationships reported in that study are largely consistent with those previously published and cited above. Below, starting from the crown of the phylogenetic tree, the taxonomic decisions proposed by Ünal (2025) are evaluated in the context of modern taxonomic standards.</p><p>(1) Ünal (2025) synonymized A. boreoanatoliensis Uluar &amp; Çıplak, 2023 with A. serbicus Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1882 . However, A. boreoanatoliensis forms a sister-group relationship with A. antitauricus Çıplak, 2004 . The species A. boreoanatoliensis and A. serbicus are not monophyletic, and to reach their most recent common ancestor, four nodes must be traced back (this clade is defined as the A. serbicus clade). The A. serbicus clade also includes A. tolunayi Karabağ, 1951, A. muratdagensis Uluar &amp; Çıplak, 2023, and A. burri Karabağ, 1951, which were disregarded. Molecular clock analyses date the most recent common ancestor of A. boreoanatoliensis and A. antitauricus to approximately 1.6 million years ago, and the entire clade including A. serbicus to around 3.14 million years ago. These data indicate that the proposed synonymy produces a phylogenetically polyphyletic species (consider the criteria given in De Queiroz, 2007).</p><p>(2) Similarly, within the A. serbicus clade, a second polyphyletic species has been created. A. muratdagensis Uluar &amp; Çıplak, 2023 is the sister species of A. tolunayi, and this clade shows a sister-group relationship with the clade (( A. burri + ( A. boreoanatoliensis + A. antitauricus))). If A. muratdagensis is synonymized with A. burri as proposed by Ünal (2025), the resulting taxon is clearly polyphyletic.</p><p>(3) Ünal (2025) also synonymized A. ucari Çıplak, 2004 and A. kizkayasiensis Uluar &amp; Çıplak, 2023 with A. babadaghi . While monophyly appears to be retained in this case, there are major inconsistencies from other perspectives. First, the species-level taxa indicated by genetic data have been ignored. Second, although the author’s taxonomic reasoning is based solely on morphology, he invalidated A. kizkayasiensis, which is phenotypically distinguishable. Third, the degree of genetic divergence between species (see Çıplak et al. 2015) was not considered in the decision-making process.</p><p>(4) The taxonomic decisions of Ünal (2025) are possibly influenced by the phylogenetic position of Anterastes disparalatus (Ünal, 2002) as reported in previous publications. In other words, the author appears to view the synonymization of the genus he originally described as a potential conflict of interest. The species, which was described under a separate genus in Ünal (2002), actually belongs to the Anterastes clade, together with species such as A. antecessor Kaya &amp; Çıplak, 2011, A. davrazensis Kaya, Chobanov &amp; Çıplak, 2012, and A. uludaghensis Karabağ, 1950 . In analyses based on certain genes (e.g., 16S rDNA; Kaya &amp; Çıplak 2011), A. disparalatus appears as the sister species and an internal branch to A. uludaghensis (with A. antecessor as the first basal branch), whereas in multilocus analyses, it forms the first basal branch itself (Uluar et al. 2023; Fig. 1). If every basal branch were to be accepted as a separate genus, this would produce at least five genera within the Anterastes clade and, ultimately, could lead to recognizing each species as a separate genus, an approach that is taxonomically indefensible. Furthermore, the diagnostic character used in the description of the species/genus, “length difference between right and left wing,” is a character state commonly observed among other species of Anterastes . In short, its phenotypic characteristics clearly place it within the Anterastes clade. Although it represents a basal branch, the splitting time between this basal node and the subsequent one is shallow, as the time interval between nodes is not different from that of other internodal separations. Therefore, phylogenies based on genetic data clearly place this species within Anterastes, and taxonomic decisions should be made in accordance with these data.</p><p>The MEVBIL research team has conducted and published numerous studies on the genus Anterastes . Through these works, a model describing the processes that shaped the biodiversity of Anatolia has been established. We believe that these studies, particularly those addressing how montane forms diversified over time, now serve as a key reference for understanding regional diversification patterns. The attempt to invalidate such robust and empirical data, without any quantitative analysis or supporting evidence, and solely on the basis of personal opinion, is scientifically inaccurate and aligns with what is defined in the modern literature as taxonomic vandalism. Consequently, it is also unethical.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A287D646517040FF3CB936FDAE704B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Çiplak, Battal;Uluar, Onur;Chobanov, Dragan P.	Çiplak, Battal, Uluar, Onur, Chobanov, Dragan P. (2026): A legacy that challenges science: Rectifying vandalistic practices in Orthoptera taxonomy. Zootaxa 5752 (2): 238-262, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4
03A287D6465F7043FF3CBFAAFD0E748F.text	03A287D6465F7043FF3CBFAAFD0E748F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Tettigonia Linnaeus 1758	<div><p>2.4 Genus Tettigonia Linnaeus, 1758</p><p>Ünal (2025: 29–30) commented on the synonymy between Tettigonia armeniaca Tarbinsky, 1940, T. acutipennis Ebner, 1946, and T. turcica Ramme, 1951, proposed by Grzywacz et al. (2017), raising doubts that the conclusions made by the authors were incorrect due to the lack of new material from the type localities of the last two species. Ünal’s (2025) comments are mostly based on criticism of the generalized statements by Grzywacz et al. (2017) without providing empirical evidence to defend the species status of the taxa concerned. Although we agree that further studies will be necessary to reveal the whole range of morphological, acoustic, ecological and genetic variability of this lineage to answer the question about possible internal gene exchange, we believe Ünal (2025) applies different standards than in the case with other genera commented in the same paper, i.e., Anterastes and Psorodonotus . For example, some synonymisations made by the author in the same paper are based on low morphological differentiation (against genetic evidence) and assumed occurrence over the same mountain range (e.g., see the comment on the synonymysation of Psorodonotus giresun with P. soganli —“ The shapes of the cerci, titillators, subgenital plates, ovipositors, and pronotum do not effectively distinguish any of the populations. Some variations are naturally expected in all species. It is unlikely that two species within this genus would have identical morphology and occupy such closely situated type localities on the same mountain ridge. ”). Grzywacz et al. (2017) studied acoustically and genetically specimens from a territory covering ca. 55,000 km 2 and compared that material to museum specimens from an area covering at least 1500 km longitudinal distance. After studying various morphological features, the authors selected a combination of characters that characterizes the T. armeniaca complex and separates it from T. caudata (Charpentier, 1845) . Although this combination of characters contrasts some published measurements, contrary to Ünal’s (2025) opinion that the sample was inadequate to cover the variability within the studied complex, we posit the possibility that former type series contain both specimens of T. armeniaca s.l. and T. caudata (e.g., Tarbinsky 1940 and Ramme 1951). Ünal (2025) also contradicts himself when stating that the length and the shape of tegmina widely overlap and later diagnosing the species by length of tegmina. In conclusion, we agree that additional empirical data will allow a rigorous testing of these taxonomical assumptions, yet, at present we believe, Ünal (2025) does not provide any new empirical evidence to refute the hypothesis proposed by Grzywacz et al. (2017).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A287D6465F7043FF3CBFAAFD0E748F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Çiplak, Battal;Uluar, Onur;Chobanov, Dragan P.	Çiplak, Battal, Uluar, Onur, Chobanov, Dragan P. (2026): A legacy that challenges science: Rectifying vandalistic practices in Orthoptera taxonomy. Zootaxa 5752 (2): 238-262, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4
03A287D6465C7042FF3CB86EFC5C771B.text	03A287D6465C7042FF3CB86EFC5C771B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pholidopterini Ramme 1951	<div><p>2.5 Tribe Pholidopterini Ramme, 1951</p><p>The tribe Pholidopterini was established by Ramme (1951) when he split the genus Pholidoptera Wesmaël, 1838 into five separate genera (as he had not indicated to generic types, new genera of Ramme were validated by Mařan (1953)). Since then, several new genera and species have been described within the tribe, and multiple generic revisions have been undertaken. Recently, the phylogeny of this tribe was investigated using molecular data for the first time, and the evolution of morphological characters diagnostic for the genera was evaluated in light of the resulting phylogeny (Çıplak et al. 2021). Subsequently, the type species of the genus Apholidoptera Mařan, 1953, the A. kurda (Uvarov, 1916), which had been missing from the initial phylogenetic study, was sequenced for the same gene regions and added to the dataset of Çıplak et al. (2021), thereby clarifying the phylogenetic position of Apholidoptera (Yahyaoğlu et al. 2022) . Using the same dataset, the diversification history of the tribe was also evaluated from a phylogeographic perspective (Çıplak et al. 2022). Around the same time, a large DNA dataset was generated for species of the genus Uvarovistia Mařan, 1953, which also belongs to the tribe, and its intrageneric taxonomic composition was assessed (Uluar et al. 2021). It should be noted that prior to these studies, large DNA sequence datasets had been produced for Eupholidoptera Mařan, 1953 (Allegrucci et al. 2014) and for Psorodonotus Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1861 (Kaya et al. 2015; Kaya &amp; Çıplak 2016, 2017). The data from these studies were incorporated into the comprehensive datasets used by Çıplak et al. (2021, 2022) and Yahyaoğlu et al. (2022), thereby contributing to the integrative assessment of the tribe. In addition, phylogenies based on phenotypic characters were previously constructed for the genera Parapholidoptera (Çıplak 2000) and Eupholidoptera (Çıplak et al. 2009, 2010), and the taxonomic compositions indicated by these phylogenies were reported. In summary, extensive datasets concerning the tribe Pholidopterini have been generated, analyzed, and interpreted from different perspectives. This accumulated body of research has led to the development of a comprehensive understanding of the taxonomic, phylogenetic, and phylogeographic aspects of the tribe. The only remaining gap regarding Pholidopterini is the lack of molecular data for the genus Exopholidoptera Ünal, 1998, which has not yet been included in any dataset. The original description of this genus was published in the journal Centre for Entomological Studies, Miscellaneous Papers, a periodical issued by CESA (see O’Hara 2011). Whether this publication meets the requirements of the ICZN, specifically with respect to submission to international libraries and registration in the Zoological Record, requires verification. It should also be noted that the type locality of the genus’s only species has been revisited in three separate years corresponding to the reported collection dates of the type specimen, yet no individuals have been found.</p><p>In Ünal (2025: 44–56), it is evident that several of the studies mentioned above were either not cited at all, or that some of the key empirical data from the cited works, such as phylogenies based on phenotypic or DNA sequence data, were ignored. This has consequently led to the disregard of taxonomic decisions supported by those data. For example, the phylogenies presented by Çıplak et al. (2021, 2022) and Yahyaoğlu et al. (2022) clearly demonstrated that the genus Psorodonotus belongs to the tribe Pholidopterini . Nevertheless, in Ünal (2025) this genus was placed outside Pholidopterini . Similarly, in the phylogenetic study on the genus Eupholidoptera (Çıplak et al. 2010), species groups were established based on phylogenetic relationships. Despite this, Ünal (2025) neither referred to that publication nor acknowledged its findings (or, more seriously, seems to have ignored them altogether). Furthermore, the DNA sequence data and analyses published in Çıplak et al. (2021, 2022) provide extensive information on the internal phylogeny of Eupholidoptera and, consequently, on its species-group structure. Although Ünal (2025) cited the first of these publications, he disregarded its phylogenetic results entirely, and he did not cite the second study at all. His evaluations of the genus Aparapholidoptera also contain numerous inconsistencies. It is clear that such issues, including the omission of certain studies, the misrepresentation of published findings outside their context, and the selective citation of data, cannot be attributed merely to inadvertent oversight.</p><p>A detailed evaluation of the statements in Ünal (2025), distinguishing their correct and incorrect aspects in light of existing data, would require many pages of discussion. Nevertheless, the publication contains a large number of fundamental flaws. From a scientific standpoint, these errors act as “zero multipliers,” rendering subsequent data meaningless. Once these basic deficiencies are identified, further discussion of minor details ceases to have any scientific value. Below, several examples of errors identified at the genus level are presented. However, to facilitate a clearer understanding of these issues, it is necessary to restate some previously published data. The phylogenetic tree presented by Yahyaoğlu et al. (2022), which includes the broadest taxon sampling, is reproduced here (Fig. 2; Yahyaoğlu et al. 2022). It should be particularly emphasized that the topology of this tree is entirely consistent with the relationships among genera previously reported by Çıplak et al. (2021).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A287D6465C7042FF3CB86EFC5C771B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Çiplak, Battal;Uluar, Onur;Chobanov, Dragan P.	Çiplak, Battal, Uluar, Onur, Chobanov, Dragan P. (2026): A legacy that challenges science: Rectifying vandalistic practices in Orthoptera taxonomy. Zootaxa 5752 (2): 238-262, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4
03A287D6465D7047FF3CBF4AFF4A7003.text	03A287D6465D7047FF3CBF4AFF4A7003.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Psorodonotus Brunner von Wattenwyl 1861	<div><p>2.5.1 Genus Psorodonotus Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1861</p><p>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 &amp; 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 &amp; Çıplak, 2014 with P. soganli Ünal, 2013 are no less intriguing. To avoid redundancy, both pairs of species are considered together below.</p><p>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 &amp; 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 &amp; Çıplak, 2014 and P. giresun Kaya &amp; Çıplak, 2014 were described as new species.</p><p>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.</p><p>A dataset including two nuclear and two mitochondrial gene sequences was also reported in an unpublished project report (Çıplak &amp; Kaya 2015) (for partially published data see Kaya &amp; Çıplak 2015, 2016, 2017). A timecalibrated phylogenetic tree based on the COI (cytochrome c oxidase subunit I) haplotype from the same dataset (Çıplak &amp; 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.</p><p>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:</p><p>“ 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. ”</p><p>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.</p><p>Data presented in the project report (Çıplak &amp; 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:</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A287D6465D7047FF3CBF4AFF4A7003	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Çiplak, Battal;Uluar, Onur;Chobanov, Dragan P.	Çiplak, Battal, Uluar, Onur, Chobanov, Dragan P. (2026): A legacy that challenges science: Rectifying vandalistic practices in Orthoptera taxonomy. Zootaxa 5752 (2): 238-262, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4
03A287D646587047FF3CBCCCFE457281.text	03A287D646587047FF3CBCCCFE457281.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Psorodonotus caucasicus (Fischer von Waldheim 1846)	<div><p>Group 3: P. caucasicus</p><p>6. P. caucasicus (Fischer von Waldheim, 1846) 7. P. salmani Ünal, 2013</p><p>8. P. anatolicus Karabağ, 1952</p><p>9. P. ebneri Karabağ, 1952</p><p>10. P. macedonicus Ramme, 1931</p><p>11. P. illyricus Ebner, 1923</p><p>12. P. fieberi (Frivaldsky, 1853)</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A287D646587047FF3CBCCCFE457281	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Çiplak, Battal;Uluar, Onur;Chobanov, Dragan P.	Çiplak, Battal, Uluar, Onur, Chobanov, Dragan P. (2026): A legacy that challenges science: Rectifying vandalistic practices in Orthoptera taxonomy. Zootaxa 5752 (2): 238-262, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4
03A287D646587047FF3CBF8EFE517373.text	03A287D646587047FF3CBF8EFE517373.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Psorodonotus davisi Karabag 1957	<div><p>Group 1: P. davisi</p><p>1. P. davisi Karabağ, 1957</p><p>2. P. rize Kaya &amp; Çıplak, 2014</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A287D646587047FF3CBF8EFE517373	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Çiplak, Battal;Uluar, Onur;Chobanov, Dragan P.	Çiplak, Battal, Uluar, Onur, Chobanov, Dragan P. (2026): A legacy that challenges science: Rectifying vandalistic practices in Orthoptera taxonomy. Zootaxa 5752 (2): 238-262, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4
03A287D646587047FF3CBC1EFDA673C7.text	03A287D646587047FF3CBC1EFDA673C7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Psorodonotus inflatus Uvarov 1912	<div><p>Group 2: P. inflatus</p><p>3. P. inflatus Uvarov, 1912</p><p>4. P. soganli Ünal, 2013</p><p>5. P. giresun Kaya &amp; Çıplak, 2014</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A287D646587047FF3CBC1EFDA673C7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Çiplak, Battal;Uluar, Onur;Chobanov, Dragan P.	Çiplak, Battal, Uluar, Onur, Chobanov, Dragan P. (2026): A legacy that challenges science: Rectifying vandalistic practices in Orthoptera taxonomy. Zootaxa 5752 (2): 238-262, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4
03A287D646597059FF3CB80AFD2F743B.text	03A287D646597059FF3CB80AFD2F743B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Apholidoptera Maran 1953	<div><p>2.5.2 Genus Apholidoptera Mařan, 1953, Parapholidoptera Mařan, 1953 and Aparapholidoptera Çıplak, 2021</p><p>Although Ünal (2025: 45–53) provided no data regarding the first genus, it has been deemed necessary to evaluate it together here. In our opinion, the synonymisation of the genus Aparapholidoptera represents a case that could be used in taxonomy courses as an example of improper taxonomic practice. We strongly recommend that readers review the tree presented in Figure 2 before examining this section.</p><p>As is clearly visible in the tree, the tribe Pholidopterini is divided into two major clades. The first clade, which includes the genera Apholidoptera and Aparapholidoptera, is fully supported by bootstrap and posterior probability values and forms a sister group to a second clade that contains six other genera. The latter clade exhibits a tetratomy: two branches correspond to Pholidoptera species, the third to the genus Psorodonotus, and the fourth to the remaining four genera. The phylogenetic relationship within this fourth clade, supported by nearly full support values (posterior probability 1.00 and 98% bootstrap), is structured as ( Spinopholidoptera Çıplak, 2021 + ( Eupholidoptera + ( Uvarovistia + Parapholidoptera))). However, the statistical support for the monophyly of ( Uvarovistia + Parapholidoptera) is not strong. In summary, the phylogenetic tree indicates a common ancestor for Aparapholidoptera and Parapholidoptera five nodes back. Despite these data, Ünal (2025) extracted one member of the sister pair ( Apholidoptera + Aparapholidoptera) and forced it into the distantly related Parapholidoptera, thereby creating a polyphyletic genus. By doing so, Ünal (2025) challenges all contemporary approaches, principles, and practices of taxonomy (Schuh &amp; Brower 2009), in other words, the very foundations of the taxonomic discipline itself.</p><p>It must once again be emphasized that disregarding the fundamental criteria of taxonomy invalidates the scientific credibility of any assessment; in such cases, morphology-based discussions amount to little more than wordplay. Nonetheless, a few points are worth noting. First, the phenotypic features defining Aparapholidoptera were initially presented by Çıplak et al. (2021) and later refined in Yahyaoğlu et al. (2022) following the clarification of the phylogenetic position of Apholidoptera . These diagnostic phenotypic traits remain fully valid. The statements concerning these characters in Ünal (2025), however, are unsupported by any empirical data and consist solely of subjective opinions and, in some instances, contain inaccurate assertions. Second, while it is not possible here to detail all characters distinguishing Aparapholidoptera and its close relatives within Pholidopterini, a visual reference is provided for the one structure debated by Ünal (2025). The titillators that represent the typical synapomorphies of the four species belonging to Aparapholidoptera are illustrated in Figure 6.</p><p>A detailed section is devoted to the genus Parapholidoptera in Ünal (2025), in which several new species and subspecies are described. However, no conspicuous morphological differences have been detected between the taxa described by Ünal (2025) and the species that have previously been studied in detail. Among these, the specimens named Parapholidoptera hepat Ünal, 2025 likely represent a marginal variant of P. saginata (Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1882), occurring near the limits of that species’ distribution range. Similarly, P. euxina (including P. euxina boluensis Ünal &amp; Erden, 2025 and even the previously described P. belen Ünal, 2006) most likely represent variants of P. spinulosa Karabağ, 1956 . It is noteworthy that the detailed illustrations and morphological evaluations presented for P. spinulosa in Çıplak (2000) were not taken into account in Ünal (2025). In fact, the titillator and anal tergite figures provided by Ünal (2025) themselves show no discernible differences. Based on both published (Çıplak 2000; Çıplak et al. 2021, 2022) and unpublished data, our assessment is that the newly described species and subspecies represent nothing more than hypotheses awaiting testing with adequate datasets in the framework of widely accepted species concepts. In this context, we will not follow the approach adopted in Ünal (2025), and any nomenclatural changes concerning these hypotheses will be deferred until they can be tested with sufficient empirical data. The DNA sequence data for the genus generated by the MEVBIL team (Ö. Yahyaoğlu et al. in preparation) are expected to be published soon, which will clarify the taxonomy of the genus Parapholidoptera in accordance with modern scientific standards.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A287D646597059FF3CB80AFD2F743B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Çiplak, Battal;Uluar, Onur;Chobanov, Dragan P.	Çiplak, Battal, Uluar, Onur, Chobanov, Dragan P. (2026): A legacy that challenges science: Rectifying vandalistic practices in Orthoptera taxonomy. Zootaxa 5752 (2): 238-262, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4
03A287D646597046FF3CBABEFDFF7583.text	03A287D646597046FF3CBABEFDFF7583.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Psorodonotus specularis (Fischer von Waldheim 1839)	<div><p>Group 4: P. specularis</p><p>13. P. specularis (Fischer von Waldheim, 1839)</p><p>14. P. inermis Ramme, 1951, stat. rev.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A287D646597046FF3CBABEFDFF7583	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Çiplak, Battal;Uluar, Onur;Chobanov, Dragan P.	Çiplak, Battal, Uluar, Onur, Chobanov, Dragan P. (2026): A legacy that challenges science: Rectifying vandalistic practices in Orthoptera taxonomy. Zootaxa 5752 (2): 238-262, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4
03A287D646597046FF3CBB0EFD9774AB.text	03A287D646597046FF3CBB0EFD9774AB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Psorodonotus venosus (Fischer von Waldheim 1839)	<div><p>Group 5: P. venosus</p><p>15. P. venosus (Fischer von Waldheim, 1839)</p><p>16. P. rugulosus Karabağ, 1952</p><p>17. P. tendurek Kaya &amp; Çıplak, 2013</p><p>18. P. hakkari Kaya &amp; Çıplak, 2013</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A287D646597046FF3CBB0EFD9774AB	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Çiplak, Battal;Uluar, Onur;Chobanov, Dragan P.	Çiplak, Battal, Uluar, Onur, Chobanov, Dragan P. (2026): A legacy that challenges science: Rectifying vandalistic practices in Orthoptera taxonomy. Zootaxa 5752 (2): 238-262, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4
03A287D64646705BFF3CBCEBFB19771B.text	03A287D64646705BFF3CBCEBFB19771B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Eupholidoptera Maran 1953	<div><p>2.5.3 Genus Eupholidoptera Mařan, 1953</p><p>In Ünal (2025: 53–56), at the beginning of the section devoted to the genus Eupholidoptera, the following statements are made:</p><p>“ Remarks. Species groups presented by Çıplak et al. (2009) based on the shape of the male cercus or the shape of the last tergite do not reflect the natural grouping. Therefore, E. akdeniz Ünal et Naskrecki, 2002 and E. uvarovi (Karabağ, 1952) were included in the same species group although they are not close relatives. E. akdeniz is a typical member of the E. ledereri sp. group. The female subgenital plate is a reliable character that provides a more natural grouping of species from Turkey and the Middle East (Ünal et Gorochov 2024). ”</p><p>The statements above, attributed to Çıplak et al. (2009), are inaccurate. All three species mentioned in the paragraph ( E. akdeniz Ünal &amp; Naskrecki, 2002; E. uvarovi (Karabağ, 1952); and E. ledereri (Fieber, 1861)) were, in fact, placed within the same species group, E. chabrieri (Charpentier, 1825) species group, in Çıplak et al. (2009). Moreover, the claim that the species groups in that study were defined solely on the basis of male cercus or last tergite morphology is also inaccurate. Such a misrepresentation of published data is not merely a scientific error but also a serious ethical violation. In a subsequent study, Çıplak et al. (2010) published the phylogeny of the genus Eupholidoptera, defining species groups and subgroups in accordance with the resulting phylogenetic tree. However, Ünal (2025) did not cite this publication and instead proposed his own classification of species groups, without presenting any analysis or supporting data and relying solely on personal opinion. Although he used the term “phylogeny” in his text, neither this paper nor any of his previous works contain a single phylogenetic analysis. Consequently, the questions previously raised for other taxa remain equally relevant for this genus.</p><p>In conclusion, one point must be clearly emphasized: whether a taxon (in this case, a species group) is “natural” or “non-natural” can only be determined by objective empirical evidence. Such designations cannot be made based on personal assertions. Scientific validity is achieved only through the generation and analysis of data and the testing of hypotheses by empirical means. In scientific publications, particularly in works published in leading journals that have undergone rigorous peer review, disregarding, or more seriously, misrepresenting reported data constitutes a severe methodological and ethical violation. Such practices are contrary to scientific norms and amount to nothing less than blatant taxonomic vandalism. In science, there is no place for the attitude of your opinion versus mine. Science allows unlimited intellectual freedom in the formulation of hypotheses, and it is precisely at the point of hypothesis formation that this freedom reaches its limit. No matter how logical or seemingly plausible, no hypothesis can be considered scientifically valid unless it has been tested. This condition applies universally: if one claims that a taxon (or a grouping) is ‘natural’, one must produce a phylogeny and test that claim empirically.</p><p>Another issue concerning the genus Eupholidoptera is the synonymization (Ünal 2012, Ünal &amp; Gorochov 2024) of Eupholidoptera helina Çıplak, 2009 and Eupholidoptera femorata Çıplak, 1999 (Cigliano et al. 2025). The diagnoses of both species were clearly provided in their original descriptions and need not be repeated here. Although E. helina Çıplak, 2009 was synonymized with E. symrnensis (Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1882), E. helina is in fact morphologically more similar to E. cypria Ramme, 1951 (Çıplak et al. 2009). Interestingly, E. helina and E. symrnensis exhibit allopatric distributions separated by a gap of approximately 300 km, and as confirmed by repeated field surveys it is well established—that neither species occurs in the intervening area. If both were to be considered a single species, how could E. helina and E. symrnensis populations interbreed or exchange genes across such a gap? The same allopatric pattern also applies to E. helina (southwestern Anatolia) and E. cypria (Cyprus). Although we agree that further studies will be necessary to reveal the exact relationships among the members of P. chabrieri species group, current genetic data indicate reciprocal monophyly of E. helina and E. symrnensis (see Çıplak et al. 2021). The reasoning behind the synonymization of E. femorata likewise remains unclear. For these reasons, existing data support each of E. helina and E. femorata as valid and distinct species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A287D64646705BFF3CBCEBFB19771B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Çiplak, Battal;Uluar, Onur;Chobanov, Dragan P.	Çiplak, Battal, Uluar, Onur, Chobanov, Dragan P. (2026): A legacy that challenges science: Rectifying vandalistic practices in Orthoptera taxonomy. Zootaxa 5752 (2): 238-262, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.4
