Systematics...an environmental perspective

[Joost Romeu]

Now that there's a lull in the conversation (its the weekend) may I weigh
in with a few comments and questions.

I'm following the discussion of systematics with great interest and
expectation...hoping that I might learn more about how taxonomy/systematics
is conducted in the contemporary real world. But what I'm reading leaves me
more with questions - than positive expectations.

Please forgive me if I seem slightly impatient.
- I'm worried. Given the conservative political climate, the interests of
the status quo seem very well served by a situation in which taxonomists
are bickering over whether they want to use paper or pixel.
- I'm concerned. It seems ashamed that those best able to sponsor,
advertise, and promote an appreciation for our environment by exposing the
world (vis a vis The Internet) to their activities are missing such a
golden opportunity by arguing minutia.
- I'm of the opinion, that merely exposing people to the fascinating
diversity our natural world has to offer - no matter how technical and
'taxonocentric' that exposure may be, will invariably foster an
appreciation for the environment and, by so doing, excite the public, the
press, and the politician.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe what I call "minutiae" are extremely important.
To that issue, may I pose the following questions:

Given:
- that things get lost, destroyed, bent spindled and mutilated, (or as one
of the conversants so aptly put it - "shit happens") - no matter what the
media.
- that people make mistakes - no matter what the method.
- that someone's always going to be left out - no matter what the language.
- that something's going to get overlooked - no matter how carefully things
are done...

and given:
- that we're not in it for money or riches
- that we're not in it for fame
- that we're not in it for political gain
- that we're want to give our best, recognizing that we may make mistakes
   (and probably will be proven mistaken someday)

and given:
- that taxonomy isn't about supporting a publishing empire (!)
- that taxonomy isn't about politics
- that taxonomy is about more than maintaining a collection
- that taxonomy/systematics is about providing, discussing, and maintaining
an active dialog regarding the state of affairs of the natural world
- that taxonomy might ought serve an extremely important role, as a serious
substantial defender/crusader of the natural world

Why is it ABSOLUTELY necessary to insure that:
- nothing we say will be contradicted?
   (such strict peer review that because of time constraints only a
minuscule number of findings will see the light of day)
- nothing we say will be lost ?
   (such strict media control that the strictures of preservation far
outstrip the costs of production and promotion of new material)
- nothing we say will be repeated ?
   (such a strict concern for centralization and dissemination will result
in very little being said about very little very seldom)?
- nothing we say will be stolen or changed - i.e. bent spindled and mutilated?
   (an issue which should be of more concern to a field worried about
deceptive shadows trying to hide the light than (what's perceived by many
to be) an antiquarian field coming out of the shadows into the light of
public scrutiny)

The Internet and electronic data entry and manipulation offer the
opportunity not only to do things the way they've always been done - only
faster and farther - but to do it while  allowing things to continue to be
done according to classic mores. This technology provides a low cost, high
profile, alternative to print and publishing without in any way damning
print or publishing.

I look forward to the day when taxonomists/systematists will spend more
time talking about how to use contemporary technology to improve and
change, rather than just condone and continue, the way our natural world is
catalogued, understood, and appreciated.