Taxonomy by committee?

[Ken Kinman]

Dear All,
     In my opinion a good model for one type of committee approach is
Honacki, Kinman and Koeppl, 1982 (Mammal Species of the World, First
Edition)---although I am obviously biased in favor of that book.  Our basic
approach was sort of a good-sized "committee", mainly from academia, but
with input from governmental agencies as well.
     The general process is described in the book, and of course, a second
"committee" produced the updated Second Edition in 1993.  Basically a middle
ground approach with taxonomic uncertainties (ambiguities) noted where
appropriate.  Hard-boiled enough to be useful, but not set in stone either.
                 ----Ken Kinman
*******************************************************

>From: Richard Hill <REHill at IX.NETCOM.COM>
>Reply-To: Richard Hill <REHill at IX.NETCOM.COM>
>To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>Subject: Re: Taxonomy by committee?
>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 06:31:21 -0800
>
>I think this is needed.
>
>There is a need to balance the need for useable current standards and
>recognition that we don't have the information we need to have final
>answers.  This is not a taxonomic issue.  It is a biodiversity management
>need, an environmental assessment need and a legal need.
>
>Lawyers and politicians will create these standards if we don't, and they
>will give them legal permanence to the detriment of the flora or fauna.
>Your proposal will have benefits only if it results in a long standing
>committee of 'benevolent dictators' who exhibit Solomonly wisdom to produce
>a broadly acceptable current snap-shot of knowledge, with a clear and fair
>statement of minority views and recognized issues.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Barry Roth <barry_roth at YAHOO.COM>
>To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
>Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 10:45 PM
>Subject: Taxonomy by committee?
>
>
> > An acquaintance of mine is the officer in charge of invertebrate topics
>in
>the regional office of one of the US government agencies that manages a
>great deal of land.  Among her responsibilities is knowledge of the
>taxonomy, ranges, and threat/conservation status of quite a list of
>species,
>and, not surprisingly, she faces some ambiguities.  A number of the listed
>taxa (1) are not unequivocally recognizable by survey personnel, either
>because they were poorly diagnosed originally or they are subject to
>conflicting interpretations; (2) are, at least partly because of the
>agency's own recent survey efforts, not as clear-cut as they seemed to the
>early taxonomists (who had less material to work with); (3) are sized up
>differently by DNA sequence analysis than by traditional methods.  To
>address these issues, which she perceives (no doubt correctly) as problems
>for agency decision-making, she is proposing a meeting of interested
>parties, as follows:
> > So far, I have imagined having all of the collected specimens of the
>species in question ... together in one place, along with range maps ...,
>recent DNA  data and geology/morphology/habitat information.  Then we can
>look at the entire body of information about these species and try to draw
>some conclusions about 1) which species are related to which, 2) how can we
>identify them and what to call them, 3) where they can be expected
>geographically and possibly 4) what to do about specimens with intermediate
>characteristicsand ultimately  5) how to treat the various levels of
>reliability in the database information.
> > My first response, I'm afraid, was one of horror:  taxonomy is not done
>by
>committee; biological reality is not decided by voice vote; how to discover
>"which species are related to which" is a deep question on which fine minds
>(such as Taxacomers) debate at length.  Some of the characters that I pay
>attention to in the group in question are revealed by dissection, have
>probably never been seen by some of the proposed participants, who likely
>wouldn't know what to do with them if they did see them.
> >
> > And yet I recognize that agency biologists, responsible for input on
>decisions that affect the fate of millions of acres of forest, may need
>"clean" decisions; they may need committee opinions they can point to when
>questioned hard about this species or that.
> >
> > What do people on this List think about this situation?  Are there
>suggestions for procedures that would lead to helpful decisions --
>hopefully
>not straying too far from biological reality?  Is there a way to harmonize
>an academic's tolerance -- love, even -- for manifold ambiguity and an
>agency's need to have its eggs hard-boiled?
> >
> > The real situation is even more complex than this, but I am hoping that
>this sketchy description contains enough generalities to call forth some
>opinions.  Thanks,
> >
> > Barry Roth
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com