[Taxacom] insect inventory in NPR = Biodiversity? Who cares?

Tue Dec 18 10:18:12 CST 2012

All:

To change the subject some what:

I am curious as to what Taxacom readers think about the need / justification 
for documentation of Biodiversity.

This Panama study, I suspect as I have not seen the original SCIENCE 
article, probably dealt with a morpho-taxonomy as did Terry Erwin's famous 
first Panama canopy study. That is, the "specialists" merely declared that 
the sample contained 99 species of xx group. And this is because our 
knowledge of the proper taxonomy of various invertebrate groups, such as 
insects is abysmal. So, we can not list the names of individual species as 
we can do for birds or mammals and, in most cases, flowering plants. So it 
is simply 999 species of weevils, etc.

So, this leads to my question? Should we waste our energy and limited 
resources in trying to properly document the biodiversity of these 
invertebrate groups, by first naming the species? Then building traditional 
taxonomical infrastructure (classifications, keys, descriptions, vouchers 
(types), etc.).  [And, yes, today there is also the DNA barcode aspects]

And this is prompted by a rejection I recently got for a manuscript 
reviewing a genus of 5 species including ONE new species. The issue was 
simply why waste resources to describe another new fly when there are some 
many more unknown ones.

So, what is the justification for a new species description in little-known, 
but megadiverse groups, like Diptera (some 150,000 known species, but 
estimated to be less than 10% of the probably diversity)?

Yes, there is at least for Jews and Christians justification in the Bible 
(Genesis) where God directs Man to name every living creature. BUT do other 
religions have similar mandates? And are there other justifications beyond 
Religion?

Sincerely,

Chris

from home

-----Original Message----- 
From: JF Mate
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:27 AM
To: Taxacom
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] insect inventory in NPR

As I don´t have access to the original Science article I got the gist
from the npr.org link that Donat provided, so my information is
probably not accurate. Nevertheless they seem to assert that the site
was thoroughly sampled and that the sorted material was sent to the
appropriate experts. I can imagine that for many groups they either
could not get an expert to help or none is currently living so I
wouldn´t be at all surprised some groups, like your microhymenoptera
were not adequately studied. Even in the UK (arguably the best known
patch in the world) many biodiversity studies are limited as few
people can id staphs, midges, etc.

The taxonomic impediment is the biggest reason why I am weary of
extrapolating from a single site to the meso or macro-scale. There are
so few properly studied sites that these estimates are more leaps of
faith than anything else.

Best

Jason

On 18 December 2012 11:16, John Noyes <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi Donat and others,
>
> It also seems that the estimate of 25,000 species of arthropods for this 
> area of forest could be seriously on the low side as it is based on an 
> estimated 6144 species collected in a half hectare plot. Given that there 
> do not seem to be any recognised microhymenopterists involved in the study 
> I would guess that the estimated number of species in this group would be 
> seriously on the  low side. In my experience a similar area of forest in 
> Costa Rica would contain at least 1800 species of microhymenoptera and 
> smaller Coleoptera  alone (a six hour screen sweep sample of vegetation 
> from ground level to about 2.5m in La Selva in Costa Rica produced about 
> 1800 species of these groups - these were all sorted to species by the 
> recognised world authorities in their respective groups - I can send a PDF 
> of this paper if anyone wants a copy). Throw in the other groups, other 
> seasons, other levels of the forest and more intensive sampling in the 
> same area of  forest and you could probably at least double the number 
> estimated by Basset, et al. Add Terry's comments into the mix and you 
> probably get to see that it is all really pie in the sky.
>
> John
>
> John Noyes
> Scientific Associate
> Department of Entomology
> Natural History Museum
> Cromwell Road
> South Kensington
> London SW7 5BD
> UK
> jsn at nhm.ac.uk
> Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594
> Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942 5229
>
> Universal Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know about 
> chalcidoids and more):
> www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of JF Mate
> Sent: 15 December 2012 16:43
> To: Taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] insect inventory in NPR
>
> Oh the irony:
>
> ...Terry Erwin, an entomologist at the Smithsonian Institution's National 
> Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in the 
> study, cautions against putting too much weight on the estimated number of 
> species. "This study is exciting because they've taken a large team of 
> people and used every technique available," he says. "But to take a little 
> sample from one place and scale up, it's been critiqued and critiqued and 
> it just doesn't work."
>
> Still, wise words.
>
>
> On 15 December 2012 05:48, Donat Agosti <agosti at amnh.org> wrote:
>> And it is original coverage made it even onto the Science cover
>>
>> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6113.cover-expansion
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Here a little blurb about an insect survey in Panama in NPR
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.npr.org/2012/12/14/167163274/counting-bugs-in-panama-get-ou
>> t-your-tree-raft
>>
>> and an audio
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1
>> <http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=fal
>> se&id=167163274&m=167230696>
>> &t=1&islist=false&id=167163274&m=167230696
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Donat
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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

_______________________________________________

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 