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

Tue Dec 18 11:50:08 CST 2012

Chris,

would you reveal the name of the journal that issued this rejection? Such attitude should not  remain confidential.

So why do we need another cladogram when there are already so many out there, or so many still missing? Is this a waste of resources, too? Or a new lipstick color, or a new country song, or a new, more efficient assault rifle? We discover and develop new things all the time. This is how science and technology and culture work.

The referee obviously exactly know what the best use of our time is. I am curious to learn from his or her insights, but they will probably forever stay behind the curtains of anonymity. What a shame.

Frank

Dr. Frank-T. Krell
Curator of Entomology 
Commissioner, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Chair, ICZN ZooBank Committee
Department of Zoology 
Denver Museum of Nature & Science 
2001 Colorado Boulevard 
Denver, CO 80205-5798 USA 
Frank.Krell at dmns.org 
Phone: (+1) (303) 370-8244 
Fax: (+1) (303) 331-6492 
http://www.dmns.org/science/museum-scientists/frank-krell
lab page: http://www.dmns.org/krell-lab

The Denver Museum of Nature & Science aspires to create a community of critical thinkers who understand the lessons of the past and act as responsible stewards of the future.

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:18 AM
To: Taxacom
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] insect inventory in NPR = Biodiversity? Who cares?

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-o
>> u
>> 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=fa
>> l
>> 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 

_______________________________________________

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