ATBIs (various approaches)

[Ken Kinman]

Dear All,
      It seems to me that wherever an ATBI (or similar project) is
established, that each Kingdom of organisms would have to be approached
somewhat differently.   (BTW, I use a 4-Kingdom classification, but it is
easily converted into the familiar 5-Kingdom system by separating Eumycota
from the rest of Protista).
      I can understand Brian Tindall's frustration that prokaryotes (Kingdom
Monera) are usually overlooked in biological inventories.  But on the other
hand, prokaryotes tend to have very wide distributions (or at least
ecological, as opposed to geographical).  Knowing that E. coli has been
found in Costa Rica is about as useful as stating that Homo sapiens is found
there.  I don't know if they have bacteriologists on staff at ATBIs, but for
Kingdom Monera it would seem more cost-effective to have samples sent to
central repositories for study (molecular sequencing, etc.).
      I would think to a certain extent this would also be true of Kingdom
Protista (incl. eumycotans).  The International Mycological Institute comes
to mind, and presumably there are centers which specialize in other protist
groups.
      Kingdoms Metaphyta and Metazoa, which tend to get more attention and
funding, are rather different in that there biotas tend to be more
regionalized, and centers studying them are more numerous and decentralized.
  Macroscopic biota are probably more prone to extinction, and therefore it
is natural to want to give them more attention (although, less face it,
vertebrates and butterflies probably get more than their fair share of the
funding and attention overall).
     Prokaryotes and protists (incl. eumycotans) should be emphasized more,
but a more centralized (and heavily molecular) approach seems best.
Metaphyta and Metazoa seem more suited to a mixed approach, and ATBI
approaches would be one of several.  Not that the ATBIs should ignore Monera
and Protista, but that collections be sent to major centers for expert
analysis there, and that training of parataxonomists be concentrated on
metazoans and metaphytes.
     Someday we will probably approach all taxa in a heavily molecular
fashion, but for now it is only practical and cost-effective for certain
taxa (especially on a world-wide scale).  To use two admittedly overused
cliches:  "Different strokes for different folks."  and "Let's not put all
of our eggs into one basket."
                 -------Ken Kinman
********************************************************
>From: Robert Fogel <rfogel at UMICH.EDU>
>Reply-To: Robert Fogel <rfogel at UMICH.EDU>
>To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>Subject: Re: ATBI where?! footnote
>Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:04:51 -0500
>
>Like most of these lists it isn't even an "AETBI" fide Tidall as Fungi are
>not mentioned. It is really list of charismatic taxa, or perhaps
>macrospecies. I find this a little surprising as some of my colleagues have
>worked on the mushroom flora of Hawaii for several years.
>
>Robert Fogel
>Curator of Fungi
>
>--On Monday, March 12, 2001, 8:58 AM +0100 "B. J. Tindall" <bti at DSMZ.DE>
>wrote:
>
> > AETBI
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com