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

Tue Dec 18 15:29:12 CST 2012

>Is describing new species relevant anymore?<

Beware of simple sounding questions! Relevant to whom or to what? Is it any less relevant than many other things in science? Does relevance have to be understood in $$$ terms?

Stephen

________________________________
From: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>
To: Alexey Tishechkin <atishechkin at SBNATURE2.ORG>; Chris Thompson <xelaalex at cox.net>; Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2012 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] insect inventory in NPR = Biodiversity? Who cares?

Chris was not discussing the paper -- he was using the context of it and other papers of that ilk to ask another question -- which apparently no one has bothered to answer or discuss:

Is describing new species relevant anymore?

-Neal

On 12/18/12 10:39 AM, "Alexey Tishechkin" <atishechkin at SBNATURE2.ORG<mailto:atishechkin at SBNATURE2.ORG>> scribbled the following tidbit:

I really like the idea of taking part in the discussion of paper, while openly admitting not reading it. Reminds me the 'discussion' of Dr. Zhivago in the USSR soon after the Nobel Prize award: 'never read any Pasternak's writings, but condemn the author...'

Alexey Tishechkin
Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History

________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>] on behalf of Chris Thompson [xelaalex at cox.net<mailto:xelaalex at cox.net>]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:18 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<mailto: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<mailto: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>
[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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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

________________________________
This message is only intended for the addressee named above. Its contents may be privileged or otherwise protected. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call. Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.

_______________________________________________

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