[Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

[Richard Zander]

Collections in general commonly are poorly named. Some collectors are topnotch in getting the right name on things, others so-so, still others are poor. Then, there are the ecologists . . . :)

Taxonomic accuracy as currently is evidenced in collections is not good if you look at the collections as a whole. This means that "conservation strategies, detecting global change and environmental monitoring" are already compromised if the whole run of the collections is taken into account. Luckily rare and endangered taxa, and perhaps environmental detector species, are commonly given more attention during identification. 

On the other hand, better naming such as during revisions is the only solution to problems with outliers in biogeographic study. Who trusts an outlier without looking at it? Yet outliers are important.


 
* * * * * * * * * * * * 
Richard H. Zander 
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA 
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm



-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Roberts
Sent: Monday, 18 April 2011 9:07 PM
To: Fabian Haas
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

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