ATBI? A reality any longer or just hype?

[Neal Evenhuis]

At 9:47 AM +1100 3/11/01, Jim Croft wrote:
> > Benefits to the HBS way: in 8 or so years we pretty much *know* what
> > species we have in Hawaii
>
>Not according to your website...  :)

Semantics. "We pretty much know" is different from "the world pretty
much knows". Although our website may not have all the answers for
everyone, our annual HBS Records summarizes our current knowledge of
Hawaiian biota with continuous supplements to "How many species are
there in Hawaii" with breakdowns by number of total, endemic, and
nonindigenous species for each taxon [despite the fact that not all
are databased and made available on the web]

>
>Just cruised by the botany pages and that pinnacle of evolutionary
>endeavour, the ferns and their allies, is not there...
>
>nor are the bryopytes (=primitive ferns), but the flowering plants
>(=abberant ferns) crack a mention, as do the algae, but it it appears
>there are not Hawiian fungi or lichens either...  :)

Sorry. However, despite the lack of certain databases on the web, I
don't think one can consider HBS a failure. I still feel it is a
major success.

>
>If it is not published, preferably on the web, it effectively does not
>exist...

Hmmmm. Don't know if I agree. Databases can always be in preparation
for porting to the web. I think the term "does not exist" should be
left for those taxa that are not databased in any form. Those that
have not been databased for HBS (as yet) were listed in my original
posting.

>
>Still waiting to see a contemporary Fern Flora of Hawaii... :(
>Has it happened yet?

It was stalled for far too long, but is finally making quick strides
toward completion.

>
>The bottom line here is, regardless of the methodology, bums on seats
>and hands on specimens is needed to make it happen...

No argument there.

>Peter Stevens might be right in his assertion that the ATBI process as
>currently practiced is conceptually flawed, but the quixotic nature of
>an enterprise has never stopped science and systematics in the past...
>and will never stop it in the future... If we are not in it, we will
>not win it...  Even it they fail we will have learned something along
>the way...
>

Maybe the question that should be asked with regard to effectiveness
of obtaining funding for large endeavors such as this is what is more
efficient? (i.e., best "bang for the buck" if I may use a colloquial)

--Inventorying what we know?  [i.e., literature survey and survey of
existing collections with IDd specimens from a particular region]

or

--Inventorying what we do not know? [Go out and collect in a
particular area and try to identify (including naming or
morpho-sorting undescribed species) all the species that occur "now"
in a that area]


>http://www.all-species.org/ wants to finish the first pass of the
>task in 25 years.  Seems like a good target to me..

The all-species project is quite different from ATBIs and HBS and has
a tremendous value. It is taxon based, not regional based [except
that it deals with planet earth as a region] :-). And if funded and
done properly will probably succeed.

And I can toot Chris Thompson's horn for him in stating that the
Diptera (representing about 10% of the world's biodiversity) is
nearing completion in that regard. And the way it was done was not to
go out and collect and try to figure out what was collected. It was
to survey the existing literature and produce a list of all published
taxa (family-, genus, and species-group names). We need more Chris's
out there.

--Neal