ATBI? A reality any longer or just hype?

[Peter Rauch]

Aahh, yes, Chris. Once every few years, our pessimism rears its
head....  Nothing much has changed except the water under the
bridge.    :>)   Peter

> >>> Posting number 203, dated 8 May 1993 10:13:49
> Date:         Sat, 8 May 1993 10:13:49 -0700
> Sender  Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM at HARVARDA.BITNET>
> From:         Peter Rauch <anamaria at GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU>
> Subject:      Raise money, not conflict!
>
> A report on the recent "All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory" (ATBI)
> workshop, held in Philadelphia in early April, was published in SCIENCE
> (AAAS), 30 April 93 issue, pages 620-622, entitled "Counting Creatures
> Great and Small", by Carol Yoon.
>
> A series of seven messages related to this workshop were posted to
> Taxacom by D. Janzen and W. Hallwachs, organizers, just prior to the
> meeting.
>
> The generally informative SCIENCE report contains one note of purported
> conflict --that between those (e.g., Janzen) who supposedly seek (only)
> a "list of names" (of species of organisms in an intensively
> inventoried area), and those who would rather provide the more useful
> "predictive power of phylogenetics".
>
> This conflict is characterized as a possible "clashing of agendas"
> between programs such as ATBI's and Systematics 2000.
>
> I find this contrast wanting in utility. And, in particular, I do not
> believe that Janzen "wants his list of names" without the phylogenetic
> substance underpinning them. I didn't hear him say anything remotely
> like that in the workshop.
>
> It is a sad commentary on the field of systematics to suggest that it
> should not be "handmaiden" in service of our environmental crisis.
> Being handmaiden does *not* imply stopping the practice of phylogenetic
> (or evolutionary or any other kind of useful) systematics in order to
> determine a specimen's name for someone not of the convenant.
>
> On the contrary, it implies performing both the basic science of
> systematics and the service of providing names to society  --at the
> rate and in the fashion they are needed by society. This rate and need,
> sadly also, is by many measures way beyond the capacity of the past,
> existing, and current pipeline of future systematists.
>
> Rather than perceiving conflict, whether it be from a self-conscious
> role as handmaiden or from one arising out of an apparent competing
> allocation of resources or whatever, systematists would better serve
> themselves and everyone else by fighting very hard to make themselves
> most needed and supported. Fight for all the resources we need to bring
> systematics information to bear on our problems. No one is going to pay
> systematists to do business as usual (as indeed it hasn't been funded
> for the past 200 years!). And, we as a society can not afford to pay
> that pittance; it's not enough --we will lose everything if we continue
> to waste opportunities and effort. Get with it! Ask for what is needed
> to do the job right! That's many ($20?) billions over the next 30 years
> for *new* systematics initiatives, i.e., funding for an additional 2000
> systematists and their support budgets. Hmmm, is that enough?
>
> OK. I have my armor on. Throw stones.
> Peter

On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, christian thompson wrote:
> ... as ALL taxa is an impossibility as the costs are too
> great, the time required too long, and people resources not
> available.
>
> The other sad fact is how much as been wasted by the
> community in a series of efforts to do inventory work over
> the past decade and how little has actually got down to
> peons, the alpha taxonomists, who are expected to do the
> work. ...  Look at the past decade, we have had Systematics
> Agenda 2000, ATBI, Species2000, ITIS, USOBI, etc., and we
> have begun this new Millennium with GTI, GBIF, ALL, etc.