The primarily North American orchid genus Spiranthes Rich. continues to present taxonomic challenges for botanists, and it has attracted an increasing level of scientific study in the last decade. In fact, 2018 and 2019 were banner years for the study of the recalcitrant S. sinensis (Pers.) Ames species complex, with the publication of four wide-ranging papers addressing pollination and symbiont biology, hybridization and taxonomy [Frericks et al., 2018; Surveswaran, Gowda & Sun, 2018; Tao et al., 2018; Pace et al., 2019 (available online 28 November 2018)]. Because of parallel research efforts and an overlapping publishing timeframe, some of these manuscripts did not cite each other. However, they clearly magnify, complement and independently support each other, in the best spirit of botany. It is therefore regrettable that Surveswaran, Gowda & Sun (2020) have targeted our research efforts with a critique that only serves to highlight their misunderstanding of taxonomy, rules of nomenclature and collections-based systematic research, positions that are amplified by their interpretation of Pace et al. (2019). Their critique is misguided, as exemplified by their claims that type specimens must be molecularly sampled in order to make taxonomic synonymizations and that Pace et al. (2019) did not include new molecular data, when we sampled more molecular regions than Surveswaran et al. (2018). All the claims can be dismissed by simple comparison (Table 1). However, due to space limitations here, we will only address a few specific critiques illustrating their approach.

中文翻译：

---

基于标本的研究的持久价值：对Surveswaran等的回应。（2020年）

主要是北美兰花属Spiranthes Rich。仍然给植物学家带来了生物分类方面的挑战，并且在过去十年中吸引了越来越多的科学研究。实际上，2018年和2019年是顽固型S研究的标志性年份。sinensis（Pers。）Ames物种复合体，发表了四篇涉及授粉和共生生物学，杂交和分类学的广泛论文[Frericks等。，2018; Surveswaran，Gowda和Sun，2018年；陶等。，2018; 佩斯等。，2019年（在线可用，2018年11月28日）]。由于平行的研究工作和重叠的出版时间框架，这些手稿中的某些手稿没有互相引用。但是，它们以植物学的最佳精神明显地放大，互补和独立地相互支持。因此，令人遗憾的是，Surveswaran，Gowda和Sun（2020）提出的批评只是针对我们的研究工作，该批评只能强调他们对分类法的误解，命名规则和基于馆藏的系统研究，其立场因其对Pace的解释而被放大。等。（2019）。他们的批评被误导了，如他们的主张所证明的那样，即必须对分子样本进行分子取样以进行分类学上的同义化，而佩斯等人（ Pace et al。当我们采样的分子区域比Surveswaran等人（2019年）更多时，（2019）没有包括新的分子数据。（2018）。可以通过简单比较（表1）来驳回所有索赔。但是，由于这里的篇幅所限，我们将只讨论一些说明其方法的特定批评。