[Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

[Stephen Thorpe]

PS: As I'm sure you will agree, it is particularly pathetico-ironic that the 
biodiversity informatics industry is currently booming far more than the 
taxonomy industry, even though it merely works with the outputs from 
taxonomists...




________________________________
From: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Sat, 23 April, 2011 2:47:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

Stephen, you made an interesting point when you said

"So, I put it to you all that, in practice, the value of a project is largely 
determined by the methodology used ... "

I wonder if this has changed much over the years in science. When microscopes 
made the big time in the 1800s, journals of microscopy popped up and all good 
journals had to find ways to reproduce the very complex illustrations the 
micro-anatomists were turning out. Microscopists trained in the black arts of 
sectioning and staining grabbed important positions at universities, ones that 
'traditional' anatomists working with scalpels had previously filled. With a 
little effort I'm sure you can find microanatomy-based publications from (say) 
1870-1890 which controversially overturned macroanatomy-based views on 
evolutionary relationships. Sound familiar?

My point is that not only does new methodology <cliche>address previously 
unanswerable biological questions and generate new ones</cliche>, i.e. has great 
scientific value, but it also generates academic prestige, better funding, etc., 
because of that scientific value. In any case, what we see of the <cliche>DNA 
revolution</cliche> in taxonomy and systematics is only small beer compared to 
the corresponding research volume and expenditure in other areas (medicine, 
forensics, public health, etc).

Systematists look at sequences and genome arrangements as sources of new 
characters, i.e. they think traditionally but use novel data. If I wanted to put 
money on research that will really revolutionise taxonomy and systematics, that 
would have to be evo-devo, which in a methodological sense is still in its 
infancy.
-- 
Dr Robert Mesibov
Honorary Research Associate
Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
Ph: (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
Webpage: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/?articleID=570