[Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

Wed May 4 08:58:14 CDT 2011

Richard Z is right.  The public has access to a wealth of material 
dealing with the biota of areas ranging in size from townships to 
countries.   Admittedly, there are major discrepancies with respect to 
how much information is available, as a function of geographic 
location.  Some areas are thoroughly documented, as, for example, the 
species of flowering plants known to occur in the state of Indiana 
(USA).  I realize that the same is probably not true for the State of 
Bahia (Brazil), although I'm sure that the data there are increasing.

Would open access improve the public's understanding?  Probably not.  
The general public reads very little and understands even less.  I'm not 
being cynical here, I am stating a general observation that almost 
anyone who works in education and information accessibility (e.g., 
librarians) has experienced.  Very few of the general public will ever 
read a scientific paper.  What they may read are popular reports on the 
latest scientific info.

The key is education - an educated public willing and able to delve into 
the popular literature and writers (bloggers, etc.) who take time to 
convert technobabble into more easily understood form.

As an example, when the pc revolution started, I was quite familiar with 
the technology - I built my own computer, understood the workings of the 
system, wrote programs, etc.  Today is different - I wasn't willing to 
devote hours of my life to keeping up with all the new developments.  
The error messages that pop up when I am using Windows Vista or Windows 
7 are written in a language that I can no longer interpret.  When it's 
critical, I perform web searches for explanations, in simple terms, so I 
can make a semi-informed decision.  I can do this, not because of open 
access to the publications in which these technological points have been 
written, but because I can access a "translation" of these.

You might argue that the translators need open access.  My guess is that 
the translators are, in perhaps most cases, the very people who read the 
technical literature.  They already have the motivation and access 
necessary to make information more accessible to the rest of us, whether 
in a "Dummies" book or on a web site or blog.

Cheers,

Dick J

On 5/4/2011 9:33 AM, Richard Zander wrote:
> There is a spectrum of exactitude in indentification, Donat. I can
> identify anything in my garden to species with relative assurance,
> because I am a botanist, I have lots of botanists at work to help out, I
> have a 5 million specimen herbarium to check things with, and a world
> class library. What about the non-priesthood public? They have the same
> problem I have identifying animals. But, I only want to identify animals
> to some general level at which I can get more general information. There
> are any number of field guides and student identification manuals for
> that.
>
> With the Web I can do better with animal identification, sure. But using
> the Web for plant identification to the level of exactitude I want is
> just ancillary. Sometimes a picture helps, but a professional treatment
> is what I need.
>
> The difference between public and professional use of new taxonomic
> tools is clear. Both aims are worthy, and there is no reason to say
> taxonomy is inaccessible when so much effort is put into making it
> accessible at the level needed by both public and professional.
>
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * *
> Richard H. Zander
> Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
> Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
> Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Donat Agosti
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 6:52 AM
> To: 'Fabian Haas'; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter
>
> Dear Fabian
>
> I think your point
> 5) Taxonomic knowledge is available
> Taxonomy is perceived as a public good, as something the states support
> and
> not the project based donors.
>
> I think this is just the reason why taxonomy is not interesting, and you
> got
> it, in my humble view completely wrong:
> Taxonomy knowledge is NOT accessible.
>
> Try to identify anything you find in your garden, be it here in Tehran,
> New
> York or Nairobi: You still can't.
>
> And find something more reliable about the species you have: The longer
> the
> less you stand a chance.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

-- 
Richard J. Jensen, Professor
Department of Biology
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Tel: 574-284-4674