[Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

[Karl Magnacca]

Richard Jensen wrote:
> 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?

But this begs the question - why is it that phylogenetics is easier
to get funding for than taxonomy alone, when the latter is more
useful and produces longer-lasting results?  My experience has been
that (in response to Fabian's original post) most non-taxonomy
people (particularly conservation biologists) will gush extensively
about how important taxonomy is and how it should be supported
better, but funding agencies nevertheless don't come through with
the money for it; and almost any taxonomic work has to be tied to a
phylogenetic study in order to get funded.

Kar
=====================
Karl Magnacca
Postdoctoral Researcher
University of Hawaii-Hilo