[Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

[Stephen Thorpe]

>But I have to disagree (a little) with you about taxonomy vs systematics ...

But hold on a minute, I was talking (primarily) about taxonomy vs. systematics, 
not taxonomists vs. systematists! The very same person can be both at different 
times (or even a mixture of both at the same time) ... that's all fine. What 
isn't fine is the shrinking proportion of resources going to taxonomy, because 
it is seen more and more as an (inflamed!) appendix, when in fact it is the 
foundation and the only rational reason for doing systematics in the first place 
(other than that it is rational to do whatever pays more and/or increases 
promotional opportunities, all other things being equal, but this is "rational" 
in a different sense to what I am talking about). A small complicating factor is 
that the developing countries are possibly doing more taxonomy than ever, 
because it is a step up from where they were, and they don't (yet) have the 
resources to build flash new "molecular biodiscovery centres" and sack all the 
taxonomists ... This is perhaps why Zootaxa has so many authors from developing 
countries. But here in N.Z., I know of some very significant undescribed genera 
of beetles in collections, for example, but nobody wants to (can?) describe them 
unless they can collect fresh material to do a molecular phylogeny. On the other 
hand, they can easily publish new cryptic species, based on DNA analysis, and 
this seems, rather perversely IMHO, to be considered to be more important and 
worthwhile!!

Stephen




________________________________
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 3:39:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

"I'm not sure what to say in reply to that, except to clarify what I was saying. 
The bit you quote me as saying was in reply to someone who was claiming that 
projects were evaluated on other grounds. However, there is a bit of a point 
here that you might, rather surprisingly, be missing: let us distinguish 
taxonomy from systematics."

I admit it, I lifted your point out of its context, because I thought what you 
were saying was undeniably true!

But I have to disagree (a little) with you about taxonomy vs systematics. I 
joined the two when rewriting the SASB website 
(http://www.sasb.org.au/overview.html) because it's obvious that 'in the real 
world...the same people often do both taxonomy and phylogenetic analysis. These 
scientists are best called systematists.' You could imagine it this way: there 
are people who do taxonomy as you describe it, people who do phylogenetics 
exclusively, and the overlap group who do both. Then you could try to work out 
what proportion of the world's active community are in each set. I think you'd 
come unstuck because individual people move in and out of these sets from year 
to year and project to project.

In my experience the funding is also fairly fluid at the institututional or 
departmental level: money supports both 'taxonomy' and 'systematics'. The 
biggest difference is undoubtedly where you say it is, namely that individual 
taxonomists don't get the money that individual systematists do. But can I 
suggest that there's a compensating factor? <wild generalisation>Systematics 
projects tend to be short-lived and people in them wander off to do other 
things. Taxonomic projects tend to be long-lived (decades!) and people doing 
them are loyal to the work, regardless of funding. </wild generalisation>.
-- 
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