ATBIs (various approaches)

[Ken Kinman]

Brian,
     I completely agree, even for prokaryotes we shouldn't put all our eggs
in the molecular basket.   And that is just one of many reasons for my
intense dislike of the Three Domain division of organisms (which
overemphasizes molecules, and only certain ones at that).  Most scientists
have no idea how quickly the gap between Eubacteria and Metabacteria
("Archaea") is closing.
     But what constitutes a prokaryotic species is even more problematic
than eukaryotic species concepts.  It is much more a "laboratory" science,
since even most morphological characteristics are microscopic, and therefore
it is more cost-effective to have a lot of centralization of expertise and
laboratories (at least for the forseeable future).
     If I have two macroscopically identical spiders, I can use any old
microscope to look at their distinctive genitalia and tell them apart.  I
couldn't do the same with two similar prokaryotes to save my life (without
expensive laboratory equipment).  So for Kingdom Monera, it seems like it
would be cost-prohibitive to send out a lot of bacteriologists and
analytical equipment to ATBIs all over the world.
     One approach might be to better train ATBI botanists and zoologists in
collection techniques for microbiota, and leave the analysis and
identification to central laboratories.  Wouldn't this be the best way to
get the "biggest bang per buck (or Euro)" on the ATBI level?   With the
growth of the Internet, communication between laboratories and collectors in
the field would not be a major problem.  Just need botanists and zoologists
to devote some percentage of their time to collecting microbiota (and if
funds allow, additional collectors that concentrate on microbiota).  Or am I
being naive and too simplistic?   Wouldn't expanding their coverage into
microbiota help the ATBIs justify requests for bigger budgets and more
personnel?
                   --------Ken Kinman
P.S.  And since mycologists already study a variety of non-eumycotan
protists, expanding their collection activities to other protist groups
would be no big jump.  I never thought splitting off "Fungi" (or even
Eumycota) as a Fifth Kingdom was a very good idea to begin with.  And now
that microsporidians have been found to be true fungi (eumycotans),
returning eumycotans to Protista makes even more sense.  But that said, even
5 or 6 Kingdoms (of organisms) is preferable to 3 Domains (of molecules).
*******************************************************
>From: "B. J. Tindall" <bti at DSMZ.DE>
>Reply-To: "B. J. Tindall" <bti at DSMZ.DE>
>To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>Subject: ATBIs (various approaches)
>Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 08:07:56 +0100
>
>Ken Kinman wrote
> >      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.).

>
>Well yes that might be true for E.coli and Homo sapiens, but what about the
>unique microflora associated with the unique flora and fauna of Costa Rica.
>  The results of limited in depth biodiversity studies of prokaryotes
>indicates that while species "x" may be widely distributed one may find
>that a particular sub population is characteristic for a particular
>ecological niche.  Or even that what looks like species "x" is in fact
>species "y" (when you look closely, but species "y" has not been described
>before).  At present we have only scratched the surface when it comes to
>prokaryotes so any suggestion that everything is everywhere is over
>extrapolating. Having been pulled up on the missing fungi then I would also
>suggest that fungi and protists are in much the same boat.  If you can't
>see it with the naked eye then it gets overlooked or swept under the carpet
>(perhaps this explains the missing bacteriologists on the staff of ATBI
>-no-one thinks to ask!!).  Microorganisms play an important role in nature
>(mineral cycling, nitrogen fixation etc), doing things which most "higher
>eukarotes" can't do, and on which they depend.
>The problem of how to do microbial ATBIs is another topic, but I would not
>put all my eggs in the molecular basket.
>Brian
>
>* Dr.B.J.Tindall      E-MAIL bti at dsmz.de                           *
>* DSMZ-Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH *
>* Mascheroder Weg 1b, D-38124 Braunschweig, Germany                *
>* Tel.: ++ 531 2616 0 (general)                                    *
>* Tel.: ++ 531 2616 224 (direct)                                   *
>* Fax:  ++ 531 2616 418                                            *
>* Fax:  ++ 531 2616 491 (ISDN)                                     *
>*                                                                  *
>* Homepage: http://www.dsmz.de/index.html                          *
>* E-MAIL: help at dsmz.de (general enquiries)                         *
>*         sales at dsmz.de (sales)                                    *
>*******************************************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com