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

Tue Dec 18 15:32:52 CST 2012

> Why aren't
> there more people out there running large field projects and add a little
> piece to a rather incomplete mosaic of biodiversity knowledge?

Because they have been identifying the taxa in this latest study?
Seriously Donat, you know how much work goes into identifying material
and how for many/most taxa you only have a few or even one expert who
can be bogged down for years with these sort of studies while the
alpha-taxonomy remains in the backburner or, in the best of cases, a
genus has to be revised because several new species have come out of
one study like this. The problem is that we have so many knowledge
gaps in biodiversity (from alpha taxonomy to community studies to
simply backyards...) that it is nigh on impossible to say with any
certainty what to expect from this or that site or to make meaningful
comparisons.

We are still very much in the descriptive phase and resources are
rather thin. Single site studies like this are valuable but we are
very far from being able to say more than " look how many things I
found".

> Is describing new species relevant anymore?

I would say it is relevant to fields that work with communities.
Otherwise you´ll be comparing lists with beetle 1, beetle 2, beetle
3...
In my present cynical mood (Xmas effect) I realise that the "hot"
research is currently in molecular biology. In that sense the world is
only a handful of model organisms anyway.

Back to the microscope.

Jason
On 18 December 2012 18:49, Donat Agosti <agosti at amnh.org> wrote:
> Waste  of energy? I'd rather look at this from a different angle: Why aren't
> there more people out there running large field projects and add a little
> piece to a rather incomplete mosaic of biodiversity knowledge?  Why aren-t
> there more people who are willing to organize large scale projects, projects
> that open new cans of worms, often in environments where money otherwise
> would not go to taxonomists, and thus are a gain to taxonomy?
>
> Donat
>
>
> -----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, 18 December 2012 7:48 PM
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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