[Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

Thu Apr 21 09:39:48 CDT 2011

It is about ACCESS.
Donat

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 7:03 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

It is my impression that "faster, more relevant and useful taxonomic
products and promoting public understanding and appreciation for
biodiversity" are the issues that are being questioned on this list. 

Just because something is faster does not mean that it is necessarily
better in any other way, and relevance is also contingent upon the
criteria invoked. Useful is also a contingent quality. It might be
'useful' to some to not worry about evolutionary units such as species
at all, but just give every different thing (including males and
females) a different identifier and not worry about their historical
connections at all. 

Just because something is or becomes popular has no necessary bearing on
its scientific veracity. 

John Grehan

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Schindel, David
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 5:37 PM
To: Stephen Thorpe; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
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 mailma
n.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
_______________________________________________

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

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 6061 (20110421) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 6061 (20110421) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com