[Taxacom] People and databases

[Stephen Thorpe]

Well, square pegs will of course go in to round holes if the latter  
are big enough relative the former! I take your point though, Bob, as  
a valid criticism that my (necessarily) quick way of expressing this  
point about taxonomists didn't do it justice. I guess a slightly more  
fleshed out version goes something like this: do we really want to  
take taxonomists away from their (arguably, but I think so) vital job  
of revising and describing new taxa, and instead give them the job of  
somehow trying to reach enough of a consensus on what has been done  
already to be able to descide on a single consistent classification  
suitable for use in a "database"? Are they the best people for that  
job? The very nature of taxonomy, particularly when "augmented" or  
"tainted" (depending on your point of view) with cladistics and/or  
molecular methods, is such that it leads to often quite fundamental  
divisions in opinion about taxa. For example, until recently there was  
a univerally recognised family of beetles called Scydmaenidae (in  
superfamily Staphylinoidea). There have been two recent major studies  
published:

(1) Hunt, T.; Bergsten, J.; Levkanicova, Z.; Papadopoulou, A.; St.  
John, O.; Wild, R.; Hammond, P.M.; Ahrens, D.; Balke, M.; Caterino,  
M.S.; Gomez-Zurita, J.; Ribera, I.; Barraclough, T.G.; Bocakova, M.;  
Bocak, L.; Vogler, A.P. 2007: A comprehensive phylogeny of beetles  
reveals the evolutionary origins of a superradiation. Science, 318:  
1913-1916.

(2) Grebennikov, V.V.; Newton, A.F. 2009: Good-bye Scydmaenidae, or  
why the ant-like stone beetles should become megadiverse Staphylinidae  
sensu latissimo (Coleoptera). European journal of entomology, 106:  
275?301.

(1) places Scydmaenidae outside of the Staphylinoidea, but (2) places  
it within Staphylinidae!

How are our bioinformatics buddies going to handle that one? Probably,  
by saying that 2009 wins over 2007!

Stephen

Quoting Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>:

> Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>
> "Taxonomists, on the other hand, will typically try to solve the  
> mutual inconsistency problem by claiming that their own theory is  
> the "correct one"! So, what do we do? The conventional answer is  
> that we just push on and do our best, but the reality is that this  
> just perpetuates the creation of more and more "databases",  
> basically all giving different answers to the same questions!"
>
> Your 3 steps are a clear way of looking at the bigger picture, but I  
> don't think this comment is fair to taxonomists. In the latest paper  
> on O. targionii, the taxonomist (C.A.W. Jeekel) writes "For the time  
> being it seems best to follow the well-balanced opinion of Strasser  
> and to recognize for O. targionii only two subspecies targionii s.  
> str. and t. verruculiger."  The key words in that sentence are 'For  
> the time being it seems best'. In my taxon-limited experience,  
> taxonomic judgement and opinion aren't arbitrary, but are defensible  
> weighings-up of a range of often contradictory data and other  
> taxonomical opinions. The connections between specimens, names and  
> concepts in taxonomy can be many-to-many, and there are no gold  
> standard tests for selecting 'correct' connections, because  
> 'correct' may not apply in all those cases (the majority) where we  
> just don't know enough yet.
>
> This is the world of taxonomy and PTPs. Jamming these square pegs  
> into round database holes doesn't deal with mutual inconsistencies  
> at all. If you see taxonomy as an ongoing process, then trying to  
> 'solve the mutual inconsistency problem' is definitely not a  
> taxonomic goal. Why should the database cart be leading the  
> taxonomic horse?
> --
> Dr Robert Mesibov
> Honorary Research Associate
> Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
> School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
> Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
> (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> Website: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/mesibov.html
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.