[Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

[Bob Mesibov]

"but... So..."

Why 'but'? I'm just pointing out that there is a worthwhile hybrid solution. I'm not claiming it will apply in all cases. How to prioritise taxonomic work is another kettle of fish. Dan Bickel has argued that particular groups get worked on for long periods *mainly* because individual taxonomists are passionate about them.

In my experience, the devotion of taxonomists to particular groups extends well past the use-by dates of any grants or in-house support the taxonomists get, and stretches into an often productive retirement. On the other hand, people apply to join short-term 'pure systematics' projects because they have experience in molecular methods and inference software; passionate interest in the taxon being tackled is not a requirement for the job.

So PBIs and their ilk bring together both sorts of people in a productive relationship, and there are many individual systematists who use both molecular and non-molecular methods in doing both straight taxonomy and phylogenetics on their favourite taxa. Given all this variety in the working world, it's a bit hard for me to see clean divisions between a poorly-supported, abstract 'taxonomy' and a better-funded, abstract 'systematics' (molecular or not). No offense: I understand your argument, I just can't overlay it neatly on the funding and activity picture I see in 2011.
-- 
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