[Taxacom] [TAXACOM] Systematists as holists

[tyler]

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 09:57:53AM +1000, Bob Mesibov wrote:
> I'm not dissuaded by arguments along the lines of
> 
> 'It takes long training and experience to become a taxonomist, it can't
> be left to amateurs'
> 
> because I am *not* talking about training amateurs to be taxonomists.

Perhaps you might avoid statements like "mentored by the dying breed
of trained taxonomists" then. I may not be the only one that
interprets such statements as implicit suggestions that trained
taxonomists need not be replaced if we can get a distributed system
set up.

In reference to distributed collections: this is actually common
practice already. For my dissertation research I examined thousands of
specimens collected by botanists of all stripes across the region of
interest. Many of them were experts in the genus in question, many
more of them were generalists or students. This data was critical to
my research.

However, if I had stuck to the distributed data I would have missed
out on a significant portion of the story. One of the taxa in my study
is globally rare, with a half-dozen known locations. Herbarium records
revealed another dozen or so. My own field work more than doubled that
number. Non-specialist collecting is absolutely critical, and my
research would have been seriously deficient without it. But it cannot
replace directed searching by specialists.

In addition to the raw data gained through my own field work, there is
also a very significant value to seeing the taxa in the field. I could
still have produced ecological niche models based on herbarium
records, but I'd have had no point of reference for evaluating whether
or not the models were sensible without some personal experience of
the habitats the species are found in.

So if you are arguing that we need to develop stronger networks for
amateur or non-specialist collection, then I agree entirely. If you
are arguing that specialists should stay in their museums and leave
all the collecting to locals, my own experience suggests that there
are qualitative differences between data collected by generalists and
specialists.

> That would sound airy-fairy if we didn't have Wikipedia and other
> projects as examples. 

If you're looking for examples of distributed biology and free
exchange of data, you don't have to stop at Wikipedia. We've had
herbaria doing exactly what you describe for centuries: archiving and
distributing the collections of individuals from all over the world,
without concern for the training or affiliation of the individuals.
Any herbarium I have been involved with is actively working to make as
much of there collection web-accessible as possible. The limiting
factor is not the vision or desire to do so, but the resources to get
the specimens scanned, the labels entered, the website up. We're on it
already, but it can't be done without money.

Ok, it can be done without money. I've worked with volunteers to get
data entered into a herbarium database. If you're content to wait
years for a handful of volunteers to enter records a few dozen at a
time, then you don't have to have any money to do so. But if you want
to get thousands (or millions) of records digitized in a few years, it
takes money.

Everything you are suggesting, we're already on board. In fact, we've
been engaged in distributed biology since forever. But in your
advocacy, you might consider something that is sure to set a group of
taxonomists on edge: the suggestion that any subset of systematics is
a viable replacement for the whole of the discipline. For example,
there is nothing inherently wrong with DNA barcoding, and it certainly
has a lot to offer taxonomy. But it will never be a adequate
replacement for all the other aspects of taxonomy. Similarly,
distributed collection networks are incredibly important for the
development of taxonomy. But they are not enough to replaceme the
system of experts in place, no matter how unfashionable they may be.

Tyler

ps. please don't cc me, it breaks threading on my MUA. I'm subscribed
to the list ;)
-- 
Support standardized open formats and control your own data -
	Reject Microsoft OOXML

http://noooxml.org