[Taxacom] source of quote about keys

Mon Aug 31 18:03:56 CDT 2009

Stephen,

The limitation to using a key to help figure out where a new taxon "might" 
fit into an existing classification say of a genus, is that if the new taxon 
pops into and does fit nicely between species "a" and "b", it might be 
masking the fact that the new taxon perhaps should not even be part of the 
existing classification.  I have seen this happen. Pull the characters off 
first, then see where it goes, rather than see where it goes, then pull off 
the characters.

Some taxonomists (systematists) try to make the key reflect an existing 
classification.  It is these kinds of keys that are the bane of the 
existence
of other taxonomists and citizen users.  Some journals will not publish on 
just one new species, but they will if you take an existing key then
modify it to accommodate the new species.

Where all this breaks down is when there is a key say to 8 species, and 
there are 20 or more undescribed species that have been found.  It means 
that the key will have to be scratched and a new one made.  I imagine that 
Ray Forster et al., who did the Spiders of New Zealand, rarely made keys 
before they had many taxa to fit into the key.  In other words, I cannot see 
them making a sort of ad hoc key that was expanded with every other 
specimen.  I can see them sorting by say 4-5 diagnostic features, then when 
all specimens were accounted for, making a key.

Perhaps it is each to his her own.  Right now I am finally sitting down to 
try to create a key to the subfamilies for the North American lycosids.
Wish me luck, as I know what genera have been placed in each subfamily, but 
a good key has yet to be made.

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Thorpe" <s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz>
To: "Robin Leech" <releech at telus.net>; <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 4:31 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] source of quote about keys

Well, Robin,
I'm not sure why systematists should not be allowed to use keys as a way of 
organising information to facilitate the proper phylogenetic placement of 
new taxa??? It doesn't seem like such a cardinal sin! The key format happens 
to be quite good for this purpose, so why not use it? The problems are (1) 
when people wanting routine identification don't realise that some keys are 
not designed for this purpose, even though they are a "key" to the group 
concerned; and (2) when systematists have trouble catering for the needs of 
routine identifiers, and can't seem to see beyond their own narrowly 
"phylogenetic" keys.
>To try to plug new taxa into an existing classification is doing it 
>backwards in my view
You might be reading more into that than is in fact there! I just meant that 
when a new taxon is found, it has to be classified (phylogenetically), and 
systematists often use keys to facilitate that. I intended no connotations 
of  "forcing new taxa into traditional classifications", or anything like 
that...
Cheers,
Stephen

________________________________________
From: Robin Leech [releech at telus.net]
Sent: Tuesday, 1 September 2009 10:19 a.m.
To: Stephen Thorpe; Steve Marshall; Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] source of quote about keys

Well, Stephen,

Your reasoning tells me:
1. Keys are made for phylogenetic/classification purposes.
2. Keys are made for identification purposes.

When I taught taxonomic entomology and taxonomic botany,
I made it very clear to students that keys have one, and only one, purpose:
    IDENTIFICATION.

To try to plug new taxa into an existing classification is doing it
backwards in my view.
I suggest identifying the features of the new taxon without reference to a
classification,
THEN see where it might fit into the existing classification.

A key should not be used to organize anything.  It should be used to
identify something.

But this does not help Steve Marshall with his quest.

Robin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Thorpe" <s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz>
To: "Steve Marshall" <samarsha at uoguelph.ca>; <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] source of quote about keys

> keys as “written by those who don’t need them for those who can’t use
>  them”
The problem, of course, is that there are 2 very different purposes/users
for keys, and they don't always understand each other. On the one hand,
systematists use keys to organise information that they can use to place new
taxa into existing classifications. The characters used often have to be
"less than convenient". On the other hand, a wider audience wants keys for
routine identification purposes, using the most "convenient" characters
possible. Systematists are sometimes not very good at writing the latter
type of key, and wider audience end users are often not very good at being
able to effectively use the former type of key ...
Having said all that, Steve, I'm hoping for a good Howickia key from you
very soon! :)

Stephen

________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Marshall
[samarsha at uoguelph.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, 1 September 2009 12:07 a.m.
To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] source of quote about keys

Dear Taxacomers,

I’m looking for the original source of a choice quote describing keys as
“written by those who don’t need them for those who can’t use them”. I’ve
used this line in my lectures since the early 1980s, and when I used it in a
talk at the 2002 International Congress of Dipterology I attributed to “my
old professor” (a nice way of saying I had no idea where I had first heard
it). Walter and Winterton, in their excellent 2007 review of keys and the
crisis in taxonomy, preface their introduction with the same quote and
attribute it to Lobanov, 2003. Packer et al 2009 also preface their
in-praise-of-barcoding paper in exactly the same way with exactly the same
quote, but credit Packer (2008) for the origin of the quote. I’m not aware
of any other usage of the line in print, nor am I aware of where it
originated. It is possible that Lobanov, Packer, and I all came up with the
line independently, but it seems more probable that it has been circulating
for decades. Can anybody help pinpoint the original source?

Walter, D. E. and S. Winterton  2007. Keys and the Crisis in Taxonomy:
Extinction or Reinvention? Annual Review of Entomology Vol. 52: 193-208

Lobanov, A.L. 2003. Keys to beetles and biological diagnostics.
http://www.zin.ru/Animalia/Coleoptera/eng/syst8.htm

Packer, L., Gibbs, J., Sheffield, C., and R. Hanner 2009. DNA barcoding and
the mediocrity of morphology. Molecular Ecology Resources 9:42-50.

Packer, L. 2008. Phylogeny and classification of the Xeromelissinae
(Hymenoptera: Apoidea, Colletidae) with special emphasis on the genus
Chilicola. Systematic Entomology, 333, 72-96.

Stephen A. Marshall
Department of Environmental Biology
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON, CANADA N1G 2W1

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here= 