vanishing taxonomists reference?

[Barbara Ertter]

As a time-lagged contribution to the Vanishing Taxonomists thread, some
statistics from the botanical side can be found in Table 2 of "Floristics
Surprises in North America" [Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 81-109, 2000],
evaluting the current status of "Authors of 6 or More Vascular Plant Taxa
in North America North of Mexico from 1975 through 1994".  Of the 56
qualifying individuals, 23% were deceased as of 1999 and 21% were emeritus.
These percentages have already increased, with the deaths and retirements
of several more core members of the systematist network.  Only 9% were
mid-career faculty at universities, with the remainder situated in museums,
agencies, consulting firms, etc.  A straw poll to determine to what extent
current faculty were likely to take up the slack (Table 3) indicated that
over half of the plant systematic faculty at universities with
working-sized herbaria (defined as at least 20,000 specimens) in the
contiguous western United States have described even a single one of the
average of 40 plants per year that are being described from the contiguous
western United States.  Less than 20% have described more than 1, and
several of these will soon slip into the emeritus category.  Upshot being
that we're becoming increasingly reliant on avocational expertise, with all
that means for quality control, training opportunities, and the like, for
core information on which economically and politically significant land-use
mangement is dependent.
Barbara Ertter
Curator of Western North American Flora
University and Jepson Herbaria
University of California at Berkeley


>>Here are some data that I find useful in talking about the decline in
>>taxonomists--numbers not easily obtained...
>
>Amelie's data on marine invertebrate taxonomists was sobering.  Here's some
>data from my recent PEET proposal submission in systematic Acarology:
>
>"In addition to tracking total species diversity, I have also been tracking
>the decline in systematic expertise over the years.  The period 1982-1989
>saw 77 individuals in the United States and Canada publish descriptive or
>revisionary papers in acarine systematics (reviewed in OConnor, 1990).  In
>that 1990 review, I predicted a sharp drop in expertise due to the
>demographics of the population, a prediction which has held true.  The
>number of publishing acarine systematists in North America dropped
>precipitously to 40 for the period 1990-1995, and further declined to 32 in
>the period 1995-2000.  Of the 32 active workers in the last period, 11 are
>now retired and one has died, leaving only 20.  Of that 20, only 9 have
>academic positions in doctoral degree granting institutions.  This last
>figure contrasts with 41 acarine systematists in such positions in 1982, a
>decline of 78% in individuals available for training future generations of
>systematic acarologists at this level."