[Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

[Richard Jensen]

We have at least two provenances for taxonomy:  1) communicating 
taxonomic relationships to our taxonomic/biological colleagues in ways 
that ensure consistency when those in different subdisciplines are 
conducting studies on living organisms and 2) providing a classificatory 
system that allows non-specialists to understand what we are talking 
about and how they can deal with biodiversity.
\
While phylogenetic relationships may be important for the first, it is 
often the case that the rest of the world is not focused on that kind of 
relationship.  As I have noted before, what my non-taxonomist colleagues 
are most interested in is not, What species are, phylogenetically, most 
closely related to the species I am interested in?; rather, the most 
important question in their minds is, What species are most likely to be 
mistaken for (and vice-versa) the species I am interested in?

These are two fundamentally different questions and we need 
classifications that can provide answers to both!

Dick J

On 4/18/2011 7:06 AM, Dave Roberts wrote:
> Dear Fabian,
>
> I pitched a similar question to a group discussing databasing recently.  How badly would you have to corrupt the taxonomic fields of a data-set before you changed the fundamental conclusion of an analysis in any field other than taxonomy itself?
>
> In practical terms, this means fields like conservation strategies, detecting global change and environmental monitoring.  After much sucking of teeth the conclusion was 'quite a lot'.  In other words taxonomic accuracy as currently practiced seems to be quite a lot of unnecessary effort.
>
> Invert the question and ask for an example of a real-world, non-taxonomic problem domain that requires the kind of species accuracy that we presently demand to satisfy taxonomic standards?  It has always seemed to me that in the real world phenotype matters, i.e. the expressed properties of an individual.
>
> Cheers,  Dave
> --
> On 18 Apr 2011, at 09:48, Fabian Haas wrote:
>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> my apologies for the subject of this email, but I thing I have your
>> attention. I am a taxonomist myself, and working a lot to make taxonomy
>> matter on various plat forms, so no need to convince me about the
>> importance of taxonomy.
>>
>> What I am trying to find out i , why we seemingly have not succeeded in
>> gathering more support for taxonomy in the last 10 yrs or so? Although
>> we have high political support for the CBD, a variety of interesting
>> projects, like EOL and GBIF, and many other plat forms distributing
>> taxonomic information. These success have little contributed -in my
>> opinion- to improve funding for the production of taxonomic knowledge.
>>
>> Instead of lamenting again, and preaching to the converted, I would like
>> to find out, why the donors dont seem to react, what are their reasons
>> not to fund taxonomic work, at all, or at a level would be useful. So I
>> am looking for their reasons, why they dont seem to receive our message
>> that we need to taxonomy. And also why taxonomic aspects are often
>> deleted form projects when money becomes tight, more often than other
>> section. Taxonomy seems expensible.
>>
>> I do have some suspicions, like they dont know what it is, they simply
>> dont like the topic, they think everything is known, they thing we dont
>> need it anyways, its a public good and so available, taxonomy would be
>> complete, etc.
>>
>> I will certainly try to talk the donors informally to find out what they
>> think, but what I would like to ask this community, if you have any
>> first hand experience, first hand statements on that. I will treat all
>> information confidential if wished, and keep informant and, more
>> importantly donor, anonymously. It is not about blaming someone, but I
>> would like to better understand their perspective, with the ultimate
>> goal to improve our communication strategy, and better address them. We
>> did work a lot on our/taxonomist communication and I believe all the
>> necessary answers are ready, collected by BioNET etc, but this change of
>> perspective -ask the listeners why they dont listen- seems worth wile to me.
>>
>> So Why does Taxonomy NOT matter??
>>
>> Best&  Looking forward to hearing from you!
>>
>>   Fabian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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

-- 
Richard J. Jensen, Professor
Department of Biology
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Tel: 574-284-4674