[Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

Wed Apr 20 16:52:15 CDT 2011

Are you volunteering not to participate in a new listserve devoted to non-traditional taxonomy if one is created?

From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 5:45 PM
To: Schindel, David; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

yes ... I like that idea, except the names of the two listservers should be 'Classic Taxacom' and 'One hit wonder throwaway bubblegum pop Taxacom' respectively ...

Stephen

________________________________
From: "Schindel, David" <schindeld at si.edu>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Thu, 21 April, 2011 9:37:29 AM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

That was truly extraordinary.

I wonder if KU would consider splitting Taxacom into two listserves.  One could be RetroTaxaCom that would provide an echo chamber for those who want to nurse their wounded sense of entitlement to public funds in support of traditional monographs with very limited readership (however high their quality).  The other could be CyberTaxaCom for those looking to develop faster, more relevant and useful taxonomic products and promoting public understanding and appreciation for biodiversity.

From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 5:10 PM
To: Schindel, David; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

>> I don't think I have seen a documentary on TV where taxonomists are protesting about
barcoding either ...

>A few examples of anti-barcoding articles:

>- Anti-Intellectualism in the DNA Barcoding Enterprise, Zoologia, 27 (2):165-178, April 2010
>- The Perils of DNA Barcoding and the Need for Integrative Taxonomy, Systematic Biology 54:844-851
>- Myth of the molecule: DNA barcodes for species cannot replace morphology for identification and
classification. Cladistics 20:47–55, 2004

sorry, but these don't look to me like TV documentaries!

>> (1) >The concept has caught the public's imagination<
>> Has it? Citation please!

>- National Public Radio, 18 January 2010: Ventura County high school students taking part in international DNA catalogue project
>- Audubon Magazine, 26 January 2009: DNA Barcoding: Cracking Down on Bushmeat
>- New York Times (page 1), 27 December 2009: With DNA Testing, Students Learn What's What in Their Neighborhood
>- Wall Street Journal, 4 December 2009:  DNA 'Barcodes' Surface Fishy Imposters on Menus
>- Washington Post, 30 July 2009: Standard Approved for DNA of Plants
>- Wired Magazine, 1 October 2008: The Barcode of Life
>- The Economist, 22 September 2007:  Taxonomy: Name, Rank and Serial Number
>- New York Times, 14 December 2004: A Species in a Second: Promise of DNA 'Bar Codes'

sorry, but all this is just pro-barcoding propaganda written by the barcoding lot, who are perhaps better at manipulating the media than taxonomists are ... it is not so much that the concept has caught the public's imagination as it is attempted brainwashing ...

Stephen

________________________________
From: "Schindel, David" <schindeld at si.edu>
To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Cc: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Sent: Wed, 20 April, 2011 10:14:17 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

>> (1) >The concept has caught the public's imagination<
>> Has it? Citation please!

- National Public Radio, 18 January 2010: Ventura County high school students taking part in international DNA catalogue project
- Audubon Magazine, 26 January 2009: DNA Barcoding: Cracking Down on Bushmeat
- New York Times (page 1), 27 December 2009: With DNA Testing, Students Learn What's What in Their Neighborhood
- Wall Street Journal, 4 December 2009:  DNA 'Barcodes' Surface Fishy Imposters on Menus
- Washington Post, 30 July 2009: Standard Approved for DNA of Plants
- Wired Magazine, 1 October 2008: The Barcode of Life
- The Economist, 22 September 2007:  Taxonomy: Name, Rank and Serial Number
- New York Times, 14 December 2004: A Species in a Second: Promise of DNA 'Bar Codes'

>> do we taxacomers really know enough about the astronomy community to be able to
state with any confidence what sorts of infighting there might be in that
community, or the relative merits of the various subdisciplines ...

Please see the Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey (http://sites.nationalacademies.org/bpa/BPA_049810) in which they present the priorities for major investments in their discipline.

>> I don't think I have seen a documentary on TV where taxonomists are protesting about
barcoding either ...

A few examples of anti-barcoding articles:

- Anti-Intellectualism in the DNA Barcoding Enterprise, Zoologia, 27 (2):165-178, April 2010
- The Perils of DNA Barcoding and the Need for Integrative Taxonomy, Systematic Biology 54:844-851
- Myth of the molecule: DNA barcodes for species cannot replace morphology for identification and
classification. Cladistics 20:47–55, 2004

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 3:39 AM
To: Andrew Mitchell; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

>A case in point is barcoding. The concept has caught the public's imagination
>and could bring megabucks to taxonomy<

(1) >The concept has caught the public's imagination<

Has it? Citation please!

(2) >and could bring megabucks to taxonomy<

Could it? It will bring megabucks to "systematics" in the broad sense
(specifically, it will bring megabucks to those who want to do barcoding!) ...
but will it do anything positive for *taxonomy*?

a case in point: A huge amount of funding is going to this:

>A Model Ecosystem for New Zealand: pilot project
Collaborative project funded through the Allan Wilson Centre
Personnel: Alexei Drummond, Thomas Buckley, Richard Newcomb, Nicola Nelson,
Craig Millar, Nigel French, Mark Stevens, James Russell, Matt Renner, Jo Hoare,
Dave Towns and Iwi collaborators.

We describe a pilot project to test the feasibility of phylogenetically and
environmentally characterizing every species in a well-defined New Zealand Model
Ecosystem using modern sequencing, informatics, distribution modelling and field
ecology approaches. The project will involve collaboration with the Department
of Conservation, and provide a long-term research programme structure for
collaborative, interdisciplinary research projects at the intersection of
ecology, evolutionary biology and genomics. <
actually, all it amounts to is "barcode everything" and forget about trying to
identify the taxa ...

>environmentally characterizing every species<
HAHAHA... "every species" ...

barcoding may be a useful tool for some purposes, but it is like a cuckoo chick,
throwing all the other chicks (tools) out of the nest (tool box) ...

do we taxacomers really know enough about the astronomy community to be able to
state with any confidence what sorts of infighting there might be in that
community, or the relative merits of the various subdisciplines ... I don't
think I have seen a documentary on TV where taxonomists are protesting about
barcoding either ...

Stephen

________________________________
From: Andrew Mitchell <Andrew.Mitchell at austmus.gov.au<mailto:Andrew.Mitchell at austmus.gov.au>>
To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>
Sent: Wed, 20 April, 2011 7:17:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

Hi All,

I think the real reason that astronomers can get huge grants and taxonomists
can't is that taxonomists/systematists are such a fractious bunch they just
can't help but shoot themselves in the foot by protesting vociferously against
any emerging large initiatives. A case in point is barcoding. The concept has
caught the public's imagination and could bring megabucks to taxonomy, but
instead of seeing the possibilities, getting involved and working together to
integrate and improve this fledgling system many taxonomists would rather fire
shots from the sidelines.  Have you ever seen a documentary on TV where say
radioastronomers slam gamma-ray astronomers as having no understanding of their
subdiscipline? Of course not! They would rather work together to build the
multi-billion dollar SKA that they can all use.

Now that I'm sticking my neck out I may as well add that funding models which
favour "innovation" over all else are partly to blame. This is why we have so
many different initiatives digitising taxonomy (checklists, species pages &
images, the heritage literature) with limited interactivity - each successive
proposal must demonstrate that it is doing something "innovative", i.e.
different from existing projects.

OK, my flame guards are up so fire away!

Andrew

Andrew Mitchell
Integrative Systematist
Entomology

Australian Museum
6 College Street Sydney NSW 2010 Australia
t 61 2 9320 6346  f 61 2 9320 6042
www.australianmuseum.net.au

#####################################################################################

This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared
by MailMarshal
#####################################################################################

Rituals of Seduction: Birds of Paradise
Are we more alike than you think?
Exhibition 9 April – 7 August 2011

The Australian Museum.

The views in this email are those of the user and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the Australian Museum. The information contained in this email message
and any accompanying files is or may be confidential and is for the intended
recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination,
reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this email or any attached files is
unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify
the sender. The Australian Museum does not guarantee the accuracy of any
information contained in this e-mail or attached files. As Internet
communications are not secure, the Australian Museum does not accept legal
responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.
_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto: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 <http://taxacom.markmail.org/>

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