[Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Apr 21 18:29:46 CDT 2011
one more point, Donat ... one that was so obvious that I almost forgot to
mention it! Why criticise traditional taxonomic journals for not being OA when
the likes of Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution, etc., are just the same!
Surely, it must be because you really think that taxonomy matters MORE??
________________________________
From: Donat Agosti <agosti at amnh.org>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; Kenneth Kinman
<kennethkinman at webtv.net>; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Thu, 21 April, 2011 7:23:10 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter
Sorry Stephen, you can always explain what people do and justify it. Just
continue doing this, but finish mourning your dismal situation. Who cares
whether a taxonomists invests his money into buying other rerprints: The problem
is that the non-taxonomist will NOT pay for it, he will not even searach for it,
unless you offer her something on a silver platter. And that we can do (but most
of us don’t). The fact is that knowledge that is not online and open accessible
does not exist, especially in a field that is so important as biodiversity and
its conservation.
The fact that 99% of biodiversity is not really known to be important for
anything, but 1% is important (eg Malaria) because it is where a lot of money
is being invested, is just another indication that those interested in it want
to have tools to identify in the simplest and most reliable way whether a
mosquito is dangerous or not, whether a fruit fly is a pest or not. And Barcode
in many way promise to do this. And it is also a fact that those barcodes are
linked to our and other data.
That the barcoders can convince funding agencies to do this far beyond the 1%
has not least to do with the way the sell their product and how they are
organized. May be it’s time to look into this and collaborate – or in the sense
of many of the fellows of this list subjugate the barcoders into taxonomy to the
proper place where it belongs with their own successful strategy.
Donat
From:Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 11:30 AM
To: Donat Agosti; Kenneth Kinman; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter
Donat,
Firstly, unless you forbid traditional taxonomic publishing in favour of *only*
open access electronic publication (which nobody to my knowledge has seriously
proposed), there are always going to be some journals that are not open access
electronic.
>Why else is the overwhelming part of Zootaxa closed to the public?
the answer to that is simple: because either you charge the author and give the
reader free access (open access), or you charge the reader and let the author
publish for free. Zootaxa chooses the second option, on the premiss that it
supports taxonomy by supporting taxonomists. It is the most straightforward
option. If I want a piece of artwork painted by an artist, then I have to pay
them for it. I don't get it for free and charge it back to the artist! In
practice, most taxonomic works are only directly relevant to a few specialists,
and they can get hold of them for free without too much difficulty, or charge it
to research budgets, but the amount of money involved is small, so it does no
harm (not to be confused with the amount of money paid for subscriptions to
journals, but that is another matter). Taxonomists who don't have to pay to get
published presumably have more money to spend on obtaining other taxonomist's
articles. It is not clear if open access results in more money for taxonomists
to spend on research, and not clear if anyone who needs to know really misses
out through not being able to pay for access. At any rate, my main point here is
that if taxonomy does NOT matter, then barcoding and phylogenetics matter EVEN
LESS, because they depend on taxonomy as a foundation. Barcoding might look like
a booming industry, but the boxes coming off the production line are all empty
...
Cheers,
Stephen
________________________________
From:Donat Agosti <agosti at amnh.org>
To: Kenneth Kinman <kennethkinman at webtv.net>; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Thu, 21 April, 2011 6:00:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter
What I like about barcode: I can look at it.
What I do not like about taxonomy: I cannot look at species descriptions.
There are approximately 17,000 new species described and a multitude of
redescriptions. They are not only not available, because in print or
copyrighted but to a very little elite, but they are also in the wrong
format: In journals not as treatments.
In today's digital Internet world we do want to get to get to the item of
interest as straight as possible and in taxonomy those are the taxonomic
treatments of the taxa. But our community trots along as usual publishing
the same way we did since 1758 in Zoology, which was then the same that
Plato and others did a bit earlier. Few changed, such as Zookeys, or in fact
EOL or species-id that provide taxon-based access.
A taxonomic treatment is more than just verbatim that so many are happy to
read in pdf, one at once, shipped to you by a colleague by email (a bit
faster than the reprints ten years ago). It can be a document that is very
rich because it has live link to external resources; it could be formatted
in a way that machine could use it and reuse it for your particular purpose.
Unfortunately, it is not just the publisher, but the authors who do not want
to make their publication disseminated as widely as possible. Why else is
the overwhelming part of Zootaxa closed to the public?
The taxonomists have not the product that is appealing to outside funding.
Rod page in his blog about the post-taxonomic age is right, the facts point
towards the irrelevance of taxonomy - in a time where it could have its
rival thanks to all what the digital revolution has to offer, and that is
not least open access. And is this not at the core of science: be able to
criticize.
We can say that I do not believe in a BarCode, because you do not just have
the one but its context to work with. We cannot do this in taxonomy in
general, and that's part of the current tragedy why taxonomy does NOT
matter.
Donat
-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 6:52 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter
Hi Stephen,
Good point. A lot of these debates are the result of swinging
the pendulum too far one way or the other. In the process, moderation
and eclectism gets overlooked. Sounds sort of like the United States
Congress, where moderates almost never get media attention, while
non-moderates (on both sides) get almost all the media attention.
As for barcoding in particular, I believe it has great potential
as an identification tool, but that it could become counter-productive
if too loosely applied to species taxonomy across the board. Therefore,
it could sometimes be misused, especially in the area of oversplitting
of populations as full species which are not otherwise warranted. Not
that barcoding can't uncover undiscovered cryptic species which are
morphologically extremely similar, but there is still the problem that
some researchers will go far overboard on the oversplitting where it is
unwarranted.
So it seems advisable to develop the potential of barcoding as an
identification tool. But we should also be careful that it not be
misused by some who are tempted to use its potential inappropriately and
splitting taxonomically where it is not carefully backed up by other
data. The question is whether barcoding, or other molecular
initiatives, could be getting more than their fair share of funding at
the expense of more traditional morphological taxonomy!!! If there is
only a limited funding pie avail, there are going to be squabbles over
how that pie is spent.
----------Ken Kinman
P.S. Frankly I think that taxonomic pie is far too small compared to
that of astronomers in general. Protecting Earth from possible asteroid
collisions is one thing, but a lot of astronomy spending would (in my
opinion) be better spent on preserving species on Earth. NASA probably
wastes a lot on things with little benefit.
But then even that is probably minor compared to the billions
diverted into corporate welfare. And most such large corporations seem
more concerned with excess profits (which are largely unearned) than
they are with their consumers or even their own employees (except for a
few of their excessively paid CEOs). Corporations also seem to be
feeding the obscene salaries paid to major league sports figures and
also many Wall Streeters sitting on their butts playing computers with
other people's money (especially those at the top of that hierarchy).
Wealth trickles up, far more than it trickles down.
----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Thorpe wrote:
we shouldn't lose sight here of the actual criticisms of
barcoding: the criticism isn't that barcoding is good for nothing, nor
that taxonomy should stay rooted in the past, but rather that taxonomy
underpins barcoding and cladistics, etc., yet people seem to be losing
interest in this foundation, and yet somehow seem to think that we
should spend all our time and resources on barcoding, cladistics, or
whatever else is flavour of the day, and make taxonomy itself into a
dried up old museum specimen ...
_______________________________________________
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 6059 (20110420) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 6059 (20110420) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
_______________________________________________
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 6059 (20110420) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 6059 (20110420) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list